1 G.R. No. 92585 May 8, 1992 CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HONORABLE COMMISSIONER BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER ALBERTO P. CRUZ, respondents.

DAVIDE, JR., J.: This is a petition erroneously brought under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court 1 questioning the authority of the Commission on Audit (COA) in disallowing petitioner's claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and seeking the reversal of said Commission's decision denying its claims for recovery of financing charges from the Fund and reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ATLAS) and Marcopper Mining Corporation (MAR-COPPER), preventing it from exercising the right to offset its remittances against its reimbursement vis-a-vis the OPSF and disallowing its claims which are still pending resolution before the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA) and the Department of Finance (DOF). Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, 2 any decision, order or ruling of the Constitutional Commissions 3 may be brought to this Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Thecertiorari referred to is the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 4 Considering, however, that the allegations that the COA acted with: (a) total lack of jurisdiction in completely ignoring and showing absolutely no respect for the findings and rulings of the administrator of the fund itself and in disallowing a claim which is still pending resolution at the OEA level, and (b) "grave abuse of discretion and completely without jurisdiction" 5 in declaring that petitioner cannot avail of the right to offset any amount that it may be required under the law to remit to the OPSF against any amount that it may receive by way of reimbursement therefrom are sufficient to bring this petition within Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and, considering further the importance of the issues raised, the error in the designation of the remedy pursued will, in this instance, be excused. The issues raised revolve around the OPSF created under Section 8 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 137. As amended, said Section 8 reads as follows: Sec. 8 . There is hereby created a Trust Account in the books of accounts of the Ministry of Energy to be designated as Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustments and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum products. The Oil Price Stabilization Fund may be sourced from any of the following: a) Any increase in the tax collection from ad valorem tax or customs duty imposed on petroleum products subject to tax under this Decree arising from exchange rate adjustment, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy; b) Any increase in the tax collection as a result of the lifting of tax exemptions of government corporations, as may be determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Board of Energy; c) Any additional amount to be imposed on petroleum products to augment the resources of the Fund through an appropriate Order that may be issued by the Board of Energy requiring payment by persons or companies engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing and/or marketing petroleum products;

2 d) Any resulting peso cost differentials in case the actual peso costs paid by oil companies in the importation of crude oil and petroleum products is less than the peso costs computed using the reference foreign exchange rate as fixed by the Board of Energy. The Fund herein created shall be used for the following: 1) To reimburse the oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustment and/or increase in world market prices of crude oil; 2) To reimburse the oil companies for possible cost under-recovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. The magnitude of the underrecovery, if any, shall be determined by the Ministry of Finance. "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following: i. Reduction in oil company take as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change; ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions; iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost underrecovery. The Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) shall be administered by the Ministry of Energy. The material operative facts of this case, as gathered from the pleadings of the parties, are not disputed. On 2 February 1989, the COA sent a letter to Caltex Philippines, Inc. (CPI), hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, directing the latter to remit to the OPSF its collection, excluding that unremitted for the years 1986 and 1988, of the additional tax on petroleum products authorized under the aforesaid Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956 which, as of 31 December 1987, amounted to P335,037,649.00 and informing it that, pending such remittance, all of its claims for reimbursement from the OPSF shall be held in abeyance. 6 On 9 March 1989, the COA sent another letter to petitioner informing it that partial verification with the OEA showed that the grand total of its unremitted collections of the above tax is P1,287,668,820.00, broken down as follows: 1986 P233,190,916.00 1987 335,065,650.00 1988 719,412,254.00; directing it to remit the same, with interest and surcharges thereon, within sixty (60) days from receipt of the letter; advising it that the COA will hold in abeyance the audit of all its claims for reimbursement from the OPSF; and directing it to desist from further offsetting the taxes collected against outstanding claims in 1989 and subsequent periods. 7 In its letter of 3 May 1989, petitioner requested the COA for an early release of its reimbursement certificates from the OPSF covering claims with the Office of Energy Affairs since June 1987 up to March 1989, invoking in support thereof COA Circular No. 89-299 on the lifting of pre-audit of government transactions of national government agencies and government-owned or controlled corporations. 8 In its Answer dated 8 May 1989, the COA denied petitioner's request for the early release of the reimbursement certificates from the OPSF and repeated its earlier directive to petitioner to forward payment of the latter's unremitted collections to the OPSF to facilitate COA's audit action on the reimbursement claims. 9

3 By way of a reply, petitioner, in a letter dated 31 May 1989, submitted to the COA a proposal for the payment of the collections and the recovery of claims, since the outright payment of the sum of P1.287 billion to the OEA as a prerequisite for the processing of said claims against the OPSF will cause a very serious impairment of its cash position. 10 The proposal reads: We, therefore, very respectfully propose the following: (1) Any procedural arrangement acceptable to COA to facilitate monitoring of payments and reimbursements will be administered by the ERB/Finance Dept./OEA, as agencies designated by law to administer/regulate OPSF. (2) For the retroactive period, Caltex will deliver to OEA, P1.287 billion as payment to OPSF, similarly OEA will deliver to Caltex the same amount in cash reimbursement from OPSF. (3) The COA audit will commence immediately and will be conducted expeditiously. (4) The review of current claims (1989) will be conducted expeditiously to preclude further accumulation of reimbursement from OPSF. On 7 June 1989, the COA, with the Chairman taking no part, handed down Decision No. 921 accepting the above-stated proposal but prohibiting petitioner from further offsetting remittances and reimbursements for the current and ensuing years. 11 Decision No. 921 reads: This pertains to the within separate requests of Mr. Manuel A. Estrella, President, Petron Corporation, and Mr. Francis Ablan, President and Managing Director, Caltex (Philippines) Inc., for reconsideration of this Commission's adverse action embodied in its letters dated February 2, 1989 and March 9, 1989, the former directing immediate remittance to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund of collections made by the firms pursuant to P.D. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, S. 1987, and the latter reiterating the same directive but further advising the firms to desist from offsetting collections against their claims with the notice that "this Commission will hold in abeyance the audit of all . . . claims for reimbursement from the OPSF." It appears that under letters of authority issued by the Chairman, Energy Regulatory Board, the aforenamed oil companies were allowed to offset the amounts due to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund against their outstanding claims from the said Fund for the calendar years 1987 and 1988, pending with the then Ministry of Energy, the government entity charged with administering the OPSF. This Commission, however, expressing serious doubts as to the propriety of the offsetting of all types of reimbursements from the OPSF against all categories of remittances, advised these oil companies that such offsetting was bereft of legal basis. Aggrieved thereby, these companies now seek reconsideration and in support thereof clearly manifest their intent to make arrangements for the remittance to the Office of Energy Affairs of the amount of collections equivalent to what has been previously offset, provided that this Commission authorizes the Office of Energy Affairs to prepare the corresponding checks representing reimbursement from the OPSF. It is alleged that the implementation of such an arrangement, whereby the remittance of collections due to the OPSF and the reimbursement of claims from the Fund shall be made within a period of not more than one week from each other, will benefit the Fund and not unduly jeopardize the continuing daily cash requirements of these firms. Upon a circumspect evaluation of the circumstances herein obtaining, this Commission perceives no further objectionable feature in the proposed arrangement, provided that 15% of whatever amount is due from the Fund is retained by the Office of Energy Affairs, the same to be answerable for suspensions or disallowances, errors or discrepancies which may be noted in the course of audit and surcharges for late remittances without prejudice to similar future retentions to answer for any deficiency in such surcharges, and provided further that no offsetting of remittances and reimbursements for the current and ensuing years shall be allowed.

4 Pursuant to this decision, the COA, on 18 August 1989, sent the following letter to Executive Director Wenceslao R. De la Paz of the Office of Energy Affairs: 12 Dear Atty. dela Paz: Pursuant to the Commission on Audit Decision No. 921 dated June 7, 1989, and based on our initial verification of documents submitted to us by your Office in support of Caltex (Philippines), Inc. offsets (sic) for the year 1986 to May 31, 1989, as well as its outstanding claims against the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) as of May 31, 1989, we are pleased to inform your Office that Caltex (Philippines), Inc. shall be required to remit to OPSF an amount of P1,505,668,906, representing remittances to the OPSF which were offset against its claims reimbursements (net of unsubmitted claims). In addition, the Commission hereby authorize (sic) the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA) to cause payment of P1,959,182,612 to Caltex, representing claims initially allowed in audit, the details of which are presented hereunder: . . . As presented in the foregoing computation the disallowances totalled P387,683,535, which included P130,420,235 representing those claims disallowed by OEA, details of which is ( sic) shown in Schedule 1 as summarized as follows: Disallowance of COA Particulars Amount Recovery of financing charges P162,728,475 /a Product sales 48,402,398 /b Inventory losses Borrow loan arrangement 14,034,786 /c Sales to Atlas/Marcopper 32,097,083 /d Sales to NPC 558 P257,263,300 Disallowances of OEA 130,420,235 Total P387,683,535 The reasons for the disallowances are discussed hereunder: a. Recovery of Financing Charges Review of the provisions of P.D. 1596 as amended by E.O. 137 seems to indicate that recovery of financing charges by oil companies is not among the items for which the OPSF may be utilized. Therefore, it is our view that recovery of financing charges has no legal basis. The mechanism for such claims is provided in DOF Circular 1-87. b. Product Sales Sales to International Vessels/Airlines BOE Resolution No. 87-01 dated February 7, 1987 as implemented by OEA Order No. 87-03-095 indicating that (sic) February 7, 1987 as the effectivity date that (sic) oil companies should pay OPSF impost on export sales of petroleum products. Effective February 7, 1987 sales to international vessels/airlines should not be included as part of its domestic sales. Changing the effectivity date of the resolution from February 7, 1987 to October 20, 1987 as covered by subsequent ERB Resolution No. 8812 dated November 18, 1988 has allowed Caltex to include in their domestic sales volumes to international vessels/airlines and claim the corresponding reimbursements from OPSF during the period. It is our opinion that the effectivity of the said resolution should be February 7, 1987.

5 c. Inventory losses Settlement of Ad Valorem We reviewed the system of handling Borrow and Loan (BLA) transactions including the related BLA agreement, as they affect the claims for reimbursements of ad valorem taxes. We observed that oil companies immediately settle ad valorem taxes for BLA transaction (sic). Loan balances therefore are not tax paid inventories of Caltex subject to reimbursements but those of the borrower. Hence, we recommend reduction of the claim for July, August, and November, 1987 amounting to P14,034,786. d. Sales to Atlas/Marcopper LOI No. 1416 dated July 17, 1984 provides that "I hereby order and direct the suspension of payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges whether direct or indirect due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the national and local governments." It is our opinion that LOI 1416 which implements the exemption from payment of OPSF imposts as effected by OEA has no legal basis. Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that payment to Caltex (Phil.) Inc., of the amount as herein authorized shall be subject to availability of funds of OPSF as of May 31, 1989 and applicable auditing rules and regulations. With regard to the disallowances, it is further informed that the aggrieved party has 30 days within which to appeal the decision of the Commission in accordance with law. On 8 September 1989, petitioner filed an Omnibus Request for the Reconsideration of the decision based on the following grounds: 13 A) COA-DISALLOWED CLAIMS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER EXISTING RULES, ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS, CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 137. xxx xxx xxx B) ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS IN THE COURSE OF EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE POWER BY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD ARE LEGAL AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND APPLIED UNLESS DECLARED NULL AND VOID BY COURTS OR REPEALED BY LEGISLATION. xxx xxx xxx C) LEGAL BASIS FOR RETENTION OF OFFSET ARRANGEMENT, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, REMAINS VALID. xxx xxx xxx On 6 November 1989, petitioner filed with the COA a Supplemental Omnibus Request for Reconsideration.
14

On 16 February 1990, the COA, with Chairman Domingo taking no part and with Commissioner Fernandez dissenting in part, handed down Decision No. 1171 affirming the disallowance for recovery of financing charges, inventory losses, and sales to MARCOPPER and ATLAS, while allowing the recovery of product sales or those arising from export sales. 15 Decision No. 1171 reads as follows: Anent the recovery of financing charges you contend that Caltex Phil. Inc. has the .authority to recover financing charges from the OPSF on the basis of Department of Finance (DOF) Circular 1-87, dated February 18, 1987, which allowed oil companies to "recover cost of financing working capital associated with crude oil shipments," and provided a schedule of reimbursement in terms of peso per barrel. It appears that on November 6, 1989, the DOF issued a memorandum to the President of the Philippines explaining the nature of these financing charges and justifying their reimbursement as follows:

6 As part of your program to promote economic recovery, . . . oil companies (were authorized) to refinance their imports of crude oil and petroleum products from the normal trade credit of 30 days up to 360 days from date of loading . . . Conformably . . ., the oil companies deferred their foreign exchange remittances for purchases by refinancing their import bills from the normal 30-day payment term up to the desired 360 days. This refinancing of importations carried additional costs (financing charges) which then became, due to government mandate, an inherent part of the cost of the purchases of our country's oil requirement. We beg to disagree with such contention. The justification that financing charges increased oil costs and the schedule of reimbursement rate in peso per barrel (Exhibit 1) used to support alleged increase ( sic) were not validated in our independent inquiry. As manifested in Exhibit 2, using the same formula which the DOF used in arriving at the reimbursement rate but using comparable percentages instead of pesos, the ineluctable conclusion is that the oil companies are actually gaining rather than losing from the extension of credit because such extension enables them to invest the collections in marketable securities which have much higher rates than those they incur due to the extension. The Data we used were obtained from CPI (CALTEX) Management and can easily be verified from our records. With respect to product sales or those arising from sales to international vessels or airlines , . . ., it is believed that export sales (product sales) are entitled to claim refund from the OPSF. As regard your claim for underrecovery arising from inventory losses, . . . It is the considered view of this Commission that the OPSF is not liable to refund such surtax on inventory losses because these are paid to BIR and not OPSF, in view of which CPI (CALTEX) should seek refund from BIR. . . . Finally, as regards the sales to Atlas and Marcopper, it is represented that you are entitled to claim recovery from the OPSF pursuant to LOI 1416 issued on July 17, 1984, since these copper mining companies did not pay CPI (CALTEX) and OPSF imposts which were added to the selling price. Upon a circumspect evaluation, this Commission believes and so holds that the CPI (CALTEX) has no authority to claim reimbursement for this uncollected OPSF impost because LOI 1416 dated July 17, 1984, which exempts distressed mining companies from "all taxes, duties, import fees and other charges" was issued when OPSF was not yet in existence and could not have contemplated OPSF imposts at the time of its formulation. Moreover, it is evident that OPSF was not created to aid distressed mining companies but rather to help the domestic oil industry by stabilizing oil prices. Unsatisfied with the decision, petitioner filed on 28 March 1990 the present petition wherein it imputes to the COA the commission of the following errors: 16 I RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING RECOVERY OF FINANCING CHARGES FROM THE OPSF. II RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING CPI's 17 CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF UNDERRECOVERY ARISING FROM SALES TO NPC. III RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DENYING CPI's CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT ON SALES TO ATLAS AND MARCOPPER.

7 IV RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN PREVENTING CPI FROM EXERCISING ITS LEGAL RIGHT TO OFFSET ITS REMITTANCES AGAINST ITS REIMBURSEMENT VIS-A-VIS THE OPSF. V RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN DISALLOWING CPI's CLAIMS WHICH ARE STILL PENDING RESOLUTION BY (SIC) THE OEA AND THE DOF. In the Resolution of 5 April 1990, this Court required the respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice. 18 On 6 September 1990, respondents COA and Commissioners Fernandez and Cruz, assisted by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their Comment. 19 This Court resolved to give due course to this petition on 30 May 1991 and required the parties to file their respective Memoranda within twenty (20) days from notice. 20 In a Manifestation dated 18 July 1991, the Office of the Solicitor General prays that the Comment filed on 6 September 1990 be considered as the Memorandum for respondents. 21 Upon the other hand, petitioner filed its Memorandum on 14 August 1991. I. Petitioner dwells lengthily on its first assigned error contending, in support thereof, that: (1) In view of the expanded role of the OPSF pursuant to Executive Order No. 137, which added a second purpose, to wit: 2) To reimburse the oil companies for possible cost underrecovery incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products. The magnitude of the underrecovery, if any, shall be determined by the Ministry of Finance. "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following: i. Reduction in oil company take as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change; ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions; iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost underrecovery. the "other factors" mentioned therein that may be determined by the Ministry (now Department) of Finance may include financing charges for "in essence, financing charges constitute unrecovered cost of acquisition of crude oil incurred by the oil companies," as explained in the 6 November 1989 Memorandum to the President of the Department of Finance; they "directly translate to cost underrecovery in cases where the money market placement rates decline and at the same time the tax on interest income increases. The relationship is such that the presence of underrecovery or overrecovery is directly dependent on the amount and extent of financing charges." (2) The claim for recovery of financing charges has clear legal and factual basis; it was filed on the basis of Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87, dated 18 February 1987, which provides:

8 To allow oil companies to recover the costs of financing working capital associated with crude oil shipments, the following guidelines on the utilization of the Oil Price Stabilization Fund pertaining to the payment of the foregoing (sic) exchange risk premium and recovery of financing charges will be implemented: 1. The OPSF foreign exchange premium shall be reduced to a flat rate of one (1) percent for the first (6) months and 1/32 of one percent per month thereafter up to a maximum period of one year, to be applied on crude oil' shipments from January 1, 1987. Shipments with outstanding financing as of January 1, 1987 shall be charged on the basis of the fee applicable to the remaining period of financing. 2. In addition, for shipments loaded after January 1987, oil companies shall be allowed to recover financing charges directly from the OPSF per barrel of crude oil based on the following schedule: Financing Period Reimbursement Rate Pesos per Barrel Less than 180 days None 180 days to 239 days 1.90 241 (sic) days to 299 4.02 300 days to 369 (sic) days 6.16 360 days or more 8.28 The above rates shall be subject to review every sixty days. 22 Pursuant to this circular, the Department of Finance, in its letter of 18 February 1987, advised the Office of Energy Affairs as follows: HON. VICENTE T. PATERNO Deputy Executive Secretary For Energy Affairs Office of the President Makati, Metro Manila Dear Sir: This refers to the letters of the Oil Industry dated December 4, 1986 and February 5, 1987 and subsequent discussions held by the Price Review committee on February 6, 1987. On the basis of the representations made, the Department of Finance recognizes the necessity to reduce the foreign exchange risk premium accruing to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). Such a reduction would allow the industry to recover partly associated financing charges on crude oil imports. Accordingly, the OPSF foreign exchange risk fee shall be reduced to a flat charge of 1% for the first six (6) months plus 1/32% of 1% per month thereafter up to a maximum period of one year, effective January 1, 1987. In addition, since the prevailing company take would still leave unrecovered financing charges, reimbursement may be secured from the OPSF in accordance with the provisions of the attached Department of Finance circular. 23

9 Acting on this letter, the OEA issued on 4 May 1987 Order No. 87-05-096 which contains the guidelines for the computation of the foreign exchange risk fee and the recovery of financing charges from the OPSF, to wit: B. FINANCE CHARGES 1. Oil companies shall be allowed to recover financing charges directly from the OPSF for both crude and product shipments loaded after January 1, 1987 based on the following rates: Financing Period Reimbursement Rate (PBbl.) Less than 180 days None 180 days to 239 days 1.90 240 days to 229 (sic) days 4.02 300 days to 359 days 6.16 360 days to more 8.28 2. The above rates shall be subject to review every sixty days. 24 Then on 22 November 1988, the Department of Finance issued Circular No. 4-88 imposing further guidelines on the recoverability of financing charges, to wit: Following are the supplemental rules to Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87 dated February 18, 1987 which allowed the recovery of financing charges directly from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund. (OPSF): 1. The Claim for reimbursement shall be on a per shipment basis. 2. The claim shall be filed with the Office of Energy Affairs together with the claim on peso cost differential for a particular shipment and duly certified supporting documents provided for under Ministry of Finance No. 11-85. 3. The reimbursement shall be on the form of reimbursement certificate (Annex A) to be issued by the Office of Energy Affairs. The said certificate may be used to offset against amounts payable to the OPSF. The oil companies may also redeem said certificates in cash if not utilized, subject to availability of funds. 25 The OEA disseminated this Circular to all oil companies in its Memorandum Circular No. 88-12-017.
26

The COA can neither ignore these issuances nor formulate its own interpretation of the laws in the light of the determination of executive agencies. The determination by the Department of Finance and the OEA that financing charges are recoverable from the OPSF is entitled to great weight and consideration. 27 The function of the COA, particularly in the matter of allowing or disallowing certain expenditures, is limited to the promulgation of accounting and auditing rules for, among others, the disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. 28 (3) Denial of petitioner's claim for reimbursement would be inequitable. Additionally, COA's claim that petitioner is gaining, instead of losing, from the extension of credit, is belatedly raised and not supported by expert analysis. In impeaching the validity of petitioner's assertions, the respondents argue that:

10 1. The Constitution gives the COA discretionary power to disapprove irregular or unnecessary government expenditures and as the monetary claims of petitioner are not allowed by law, the COA acted within its jurisdiction in denying them; 2. P.D. No. 1956 and E.O. No. 137 do not allow reimbursement of financing charges from the OPSF; 3. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, the "other factors" mentioned in the second purpose of the OPSF pursuant to E.O. No. 137 can only include "factors which are of the same nature or analogous to those enumerated;" 4. In allowing reimbursement of financing charges from OPSF, Circular No. 1-87 of the Department of Finance violates P.D. No. 1956 and E.O. No. 137; and 5. Department of Finance rules and regulations implementing P.D. No. 1956 do not likewise allow reimbursement of financing charges. 29 We find no merit in the first assigned error. As to the power of the COA, which must first be resolved in view of its primacy, We find the theory of petitioner that such does not extend to the disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or use of government funds and properties, but only to the promulgation of accounting and auditing rules for, among others, such disallowance to be untenable in the light of the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and related laws. Section 2, Subdivision D, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides: Sec. 2(l). The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other governmentowned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts, of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto. (2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or, unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. These present powers, consistent with the declared independence of the Commission, 30 are broader and more extensive than that conferred by the 1973 Constitution. Under the latter, the Commission was empowered to: Examine, audit, and settle, in accordance with law and regulations, all accounts pertaining to the revenues, and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities including government-owned or controlled corporations, keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto; and promulgate accounting

11 and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds and property. 31 Upon the other hand, under the 1935 Constitution, the power and authority of the COA's precursor, the General Auditing Office, were, unfortunately, limited; its very role was markedly passive. Section 2 of Article XI thereofprovided: Sec. 2. The Auditor General shall examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and receipts from whatever source, including trust funds derived from bond issues; and audit, in accordance with law and administrative regulations, all expenditures of funds or property pertaining to or held in trust by the Government or the provinces or municipalities thereof. He shall keep the general accounts of the Government and the preserve the vouchers pertaining thereto. It shall be the duty of the Auditor General to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer expenditures of funds or property which, in his opinion, are irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant. He shall also perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law. As clearly shown above, in respect to irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds, the 1935 Constitution did not grant the Auditor General the power to issue rules and regulations to prevent the same. His was merely to bring that matter to the attention of the proper administrative officer. The ruling on this particular point, quoted by petitioner from the cases of Guevarra vs. Gimenez 32 and Ramos vs.Aquino, 33 are no longer controlling as the two (2) were decided in the light of the 1935 Constitution. There can be no doubt, however, that the audit power of the Auditor General under the 1935 Constitution and the Commission on Audit under the 1973 Constitution authorized them to disallow illegal expenditures of funds or uses of funds and property. Our present Constitution retains that same power and authority, further strengthened by the definition of the COA's general jurisdiction in Section 26 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines 34and Administrative Code of 1987. 35 Pursuant to its power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds, 36 the COA promulgated on 29 March 1977 COA Circular No. 77-55. Since the COA is responsible for the enforcement of the rules and regulations, it goes without saying that failure to comply with them is a ground for disapproving the payment of the proposed expenditure. As observed by one of the Commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas: 37 It should be noted, however, that whereas under Article XI, Section 2, of the 1935 Constitution the Auditor General could not correct "irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant" expenditures of public funds but could only "bring [the matter] to the attention of the proper administrative officer," under the 1987 Constitution, as also under the 1973 Constitution, the Commission on Audit can "promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties." Hence, since the Commission on Audit must ultimately be responsible for the enforcement of these rules and regulations, the failure to comply with these regulations can be a ground for disapproving the payment of a proposed expenditure. Indeed, when the framers of the last two (2) Constitutions conferred upon the COA a more active role and invested it with broader and more extensive powers, they did not intend merely to make the COA a toothless tiger, but rather envisioned a dynamic, effective, efficient and independent watchdog of the Government. The issue of the financing charges boils down to the validity of Department of Finance Circular No. 1-87, Department of Finance Circular No. 4-88 and the implementing circulars of the OEA, issued pursuant to Section 8, P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, authorizing it to determine "other factors" which may result in cost underrecovery and a consequent reimbursement from the OPSF. The Solicitor General maintains that, following the doctrine of ejusdem generis, financing charges are not included in "cost underrecovery" and, therefore, cannot be considered as one of the "other factors." Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, does not explicitly define what "cost underrecovery" is. It merely states what it includes. Thus:

12 . . . "Cost underrecovery" shall include the following: i. Reduction in oil company takes as directed by the Board of Energy without the corresponding reduction in the landed cost of oil inventories in the possession of the oil companies at the time of the price change; ii. Reduction in internal ad valorem taxes as a result of foregoing government mandated price reductions; iii. Other factors as may be determined by the Ministry of Finance to result in cost underrecovery. These "other factors" can include only those which are of the same class or nature as the two specifically enumerated in subparagraphs (i) and (ii). A common characteristic of both is that they are in the nature of government mandated price reductions. Hence, any other factor which seeks to be a part of the enumeration, or which could qualify as a cost underrecovery, must be of the same class or nature as those specifically enumerated. Petitioner, however, suggests that E.O. No. 137 intended to grant the Department of Finance broad and unrestricted authority to determine or define "other factors." Both views are unacceptable to this Court. The rule of ejusdem generis states that "[w]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are held to be as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. 38 A reading of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) easily discloses that they do not have a common characteristic. The first relates to price reduction as directed by the Board of Energy while the second refers to reduction in internal ad valorem taxes. Therefore, subparagraph (iii) cannot be limited by the enumeration in these subparagraphs. What should be considered for purposes of determining the "other factors" in subparagraph (iii) is the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the Section which explicitly allows cost underrecovery only if such were incurred as a result of the reduction of domestic prices of petroleum products . Although petitioner's financing losses, if indeed incurred, may constitute cost underrecovery in the sense that such were incurred as a result of the inability to fully offset financing expenses from yields in money market placements, they do not, however, fall under the foregoing provision of P.D. No. 1956, as amended, because the same did not result from the reduction of the domestic price of petroleum products. Until paragraph (2), Section 8 of the decree, as amended, is further amended by Congress, this Court can do nothing. The duty of this Court is not to legislate, but to apply or interpret the law. Be that as it may, this Court wishes to emphasize that as the facts in this case have shown, it was at the behest of the Government that petitioner refinanced its oil import payments from the normal 30-day trade credit to a maximum of 360 days. Petitioner could be correct in its assertion that owing to the extended period for payment, the financial institution which refinanced said payments charged a higher interest, thereby resulting in higher financing expenses for the petitioner. It would appear then that equity considerations dictate that petitioner should somehow be allowed to recover its financing losses, if any, which may have been sustained because it accommodated the request of the Government. Although under Section 29 of the National Internal Revenue Code such losses may be deducted from gross income, the effect of that loss would be merely to reduce its taxable income, but not to actually wipe out such losses. The Government then may consider some positive measures to help petitioner and others similarly situated to obtain substantial relief. An amendment, as aforestated, may then be in order. Upon the other hand, to accept petitioner's theory of "unrestricted authority" on the part of the Department of Finance to determine or define "other factors" is to uphold an undue delegation of legislative power, it clearly appearing that the subject provision does not provide any standard for the exercise of the authority. It is a fundamental rule that delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and that the legislature, in making the delegation, has prescribed the manner of the exercise of the delegated authority. 39 Finally, whether petitioner gained or lost by reason of the extensive credit is rendered irrelevant by reason of the foregoing disquisitions. It may nevertheless be stated that petitioner failed to disprove COA's claim that it had in fact gained in the process. Otherwise stated, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it incurred a loss. Such being the case, how can petitioner claim for reimbursement? It cannot have its cake and eat it too.

13 II. Anent the claims arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, We find for the petitioner. The respondents themselves admit in their Comment that underrecovery arising from sales to NPC are reimbursable because NPC was granted full exemption from the payment of taxes; to prove this, respondents trace the laws providing for such exemption. 40 The last law cited is the Fiscal Incentives Regulatory Board's Resolution No. 17-87 of 24 June 1987 which provides, in part, "that the tax and duty exemption privileges of the National Power Corporation, including those pertaining to its domestic purchases of petroleum and petroleum products . . . are restored effective March 10, 1987." In a Memorandum issued on 5 October 1987 by the Office of the President, NPC's tax exemption was confirmed and approved. Furthermore, as pointed out by respondents, the intention to exempt sales of petroleum products to the NPC is evident in the recently passed Republic Act No. 6952 establishing the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to support the OPSF. 41 The pertinent part of Section 2, Republic Act No. 6952 provides: Sec. 2. Application of the Fund shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) That the Fund shall be used to reimburse the oil companies for (a) cost increases of imported crude oil and finished petroleum products resulting from foreign exchange rate adjustments and/or increases in world market prices of crude oil; (b) cost underrecovery incurred as a result of fuel oil sales to the National Power Corporation (NPC); and (c) other cost underrecoveries incurred as may be finally decided by the Supreme Court; . . . Hence, petitioner can recover its claim arising from sales of petroleum products to the National Power Corporation. III. With respect to its claim for reimbursement on sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, petitioner relies on Letter of Instruction (LOI) 1416, dated 17 July 1984, which ordered the suspension of payments of all taxes, duties, fees and other charges, whether direct or indirect, due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the national government. Pursuant to this LOI, then Minister of Energy, Hon. Geronimo Velasco, issued Memorandum Circular No. 84-11-22 advising the oil companies that Atlas Consolidated Mining Corporation and Marcopper Mining Corporation are among those declared to be in distress. In denying the claims arising from sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, the COA, in its 18 August 1989 letter to Executive Director Wenceslao R. de la Paz, states that "it is our opinion that LOI 1416 which implements the exemption from payment of OPSF imposts as effected by OEA has no legal basis;" 42 in its Decision No. 1171, it ruled that "the CPI (CALTEX) (Caltex) has no authority to claim reimbursement for this uncollected impost because LOI 1416 dated July 17, 1984, . . . was issued when OPSF was not yet in existence and could not have contemplated OPSF imposts at the time of its formulation." 43 It is further stated that: "Moreover, it is evident that OPSF was not created to aid distressed mining companies but rather to help the domestic oil industry by stabilizing oil prices." In sustaining COA's stand, respondents vigorously maintain that LOI 1416 could not have intended to exempt said distressed mining companies from the payment of OPSF dues for the following reasons: a. LOI 1416 granting the alleged exemption was issued on July 17, 1984. P.D. 1956 creating the OPSF was promulgated on October 10, 1984, while E.O. 137, amending P.D. 1956, was issued on February 25, 1987. b. LOI 1416 was issued in 1984 to assist distressed copper mining companies in line with the government's effort to prevent the collapse of the copper industry. P.D No. 1956, as amended, was issued for the purpose of minimizing frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate adjustments and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil and imported petroleum product's; and c. LOI 1416 caused the "suspension of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges, whether direct or indirect, due and payable by the copper mining companies in distress to the Notional and Local Governments . . ." On the other hand, OPSF dues are not payable by ( sic) distressed copper companies

14 but by oil companies. It is to be noted that the copper mining companies do not pay OPSF dues. Rather, such imposts are built in or already incorporated in the prices of oil products. 44 Lastly, respondents allege that while LOI 1416 suspends the payment of taxes by distressed mining companies, it does not accord petitioner the same privilege with respect to its obligation to pay OPSF dues. We concur with the disquisitions of the respondents. Aside from such reasons, however, it is apparent that LOI 1416 was never published in the Official Gazette 45 as required by Article 2 of the Civil Code, which reads: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. . . . In applying said provision, this Court ruled in the case of Taada vs. Tuvera: 46 WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published they shall have no binding force and effect. Resolving the motion for reconsideration of said decision, this Court, in its Resolution promulgated on 29 December 1986, 47 ruled: We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing laws pursuant also to a valid delegation. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that all laws as above defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen days from their publication, or on another date specified by the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code. LOI 1416 has, therefore, no binding force or effect as it was never published in the Official Gazette after its issuance or at any time after the decision in the abovementioned cases. Article 2 of the Civil Code was, however, later amended by Executive Order No. 200, issued on 18 June 1987. As amended, the said provision now reads: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwiseprovided. We are not aware of the publication of LOI 1416 in any newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Executive Order No. 200. Furthermore, even granting arguendo that LOI 1416 has force and effect, petitioner's claim must still fail. Tax exemptions as a general rule are construed strictly against the grantee and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. 48 The burden of proof rests upon the party claiming exemption to prove that it is in fact covered by the exemption so claimed. The party claiming exemption must therefore be expressly mentioned in the exempting law or at least be within its purview by clear legislative intent.

15 In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that it is entitled, as a consequence of its sales to ATLAS and MARCOPPER, to claim reimbursement from the OPSF under LOI 1416. Though LOI 1416 may suspend the payment of taxes by copper mining companies, it does not give petitioner the same privilege with respect to the payment of OPSF dues. IV. As to COA's disallowance of the amount of P130,420,235.00, petitioner maintains that the Department of Finance has still to issue a final and definitive ruling thereon; accordingly, it was premature for COA to disallow it. By doing so, the latter acted beyond its jurisdiction. 49 Respondents, on the other hand, contend that said amount was already disallowed by the OEA for failure to substantiate it. 50 In fact, when OEA submitted the claims of petitioner for pre-audit, the abovementioned amount was already excluded. An examination of the records of this case shows that petitioner failed to prove or substantiate its contention that the amount of P130,420,235.00 is still pending before the OEA and the DOF. Additionally, We find no reason to doubt the submission of respondents that said amount has already been passed upon by the OEA. Hence, the ruling of respondent COA disapproving said claim must be upheld. V. The last issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the amounts due to the OPSF from petitioner may be offset against petitioner's outstanding claims from said fund. Petitioner contends that it should be allowed to offset its claims from the OPSF against its contributions to the fund as this has been allowed in the past, particularly in the years 1987 and 1988. 51 Furthermore, petitioner cites, as bases for offsetting, the provisions of the New Civil Code on compensation and Section 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised Administrative Code which provides for "Retention of Money for Satisfaction of Indebtedness to Government." 52 Petitioner also mentions communications from the Board of Energy and the Department of Finance that supposedly authorize compensation. Respondents, on the other hand, citing Francia vs. IAC and Fernandez, 53 contend that there can be no offsetting of taxes against the claims that a taxpayer may have against the government, as taxes do not arise from contracts or depend upon the will of the taxpayer, but are imposed by law. Respondents also allege that petitioner's reliance on Section 21, Book V, Title I-B of the Revised Administrative Code, is misplaced because "while this provision empowers the COA to withhold payment of a government indebtedness to a person who is also indebted to the government and apply the government indebtedness to the satisfaction of the obligation of the person to the government, like authority or right to make compensation is not given to the private person." 54 The reason for this, as stated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc., 55 is that money due the government, either in the form of taxes or other dues, is its lifeblood and should be collected without hindrance. Thus, instead of giving petitioner a reason for compensation or set-off, the Revised Administrative Code makes it the respondents' duty to collect petitioner's indebtedness to the OPSF. Refuting respondents' contention, petitioner claims that the amounts due from it do not arise as a result of taxation because "P.D. 1956, amended, did not create a source of taxation; it instead established a special fund . . .," 56and that the OPSF contributions do not go to the general fund of the state and are not used for public purpose, i.e., not for the support of the government, the administration of law, or the payment of public expenses. This alleged lack of a public purpose behind OPSF exactions distinguishes such from a tax. Hence, the ruling in the Francia case is inapplicable. Lastly, petitioner cites R.A. No. 6952 creating the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to support the OPSF; the said law provides in part that: Sec. 2. Application of the fund shall be subject to the following conditions: xxx xxx xxx (3) That no amount of the Petroleum Price Standby Fund shall be used to pay any oil company which has an outstanding obligation to the Government without said obligation being offset first, subject to the requirements of compensation or offset under the Civil Code.

16 We find no merit in petitioner's contention that the OPSF contributions are not for a public purpose because they go to a special fund of the government. Taxation is no longer envisioned as a measure merely to raise revenue to support the existence of the government; taxes may be levied with a regulatory purpose to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of a threatened industry which is affected with public interest as to be within the police power of the state. 57 There can be no doubt that the oil industry is greatly imbued with public interest as it vitally affects the general welfare. Any unregulated increase in oil prices could hurt the lives of a majority of the people and cause economic crisis of untold proportions. It would have a chain reaction in terms of, among others, demands for wage increases and upward spiralling of the cost of basic commodities. The stabilization then of oil prices is of prime concern which the state, via its police power, may properly address. Also, P.D. No. 1956, as amended by E.O. No. 137, explicitly provides that the source of OPSF is taxation. No amount of semantical juggleries could dim this fact. It is settled that a taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims that he may have against the government. 58Taxes cannot be the subject of compensation because the government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be set-off. 59 We may even further state that technically, in respect to the taxes for the OPSF, the oil companies merely act as agents for the Government in the latter's collection since the taxes are, in reality, passed unto the end-users the consuming public. In that capacity, the petitioner, as one of such companies, has the primary obligation to account for and remit the taxes collected to the administrator of the OPSF. This duty stems from the fiduciary relationship between the two; petitioner certainly cannot be considered merely as a debtor. In respect, therefore, to its collection for the OPSF vis-a-vis its claims for reimbursement, no compensation is likewise legally feasible. Firstly, the Government and the petitioner cannot be said to be mutually debtors and creditors of each other. Secondly, there is no proof that petitioner's claim is already due and liquidated. Under Article 1279 of the Civil Code, in order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary that: (1) each one of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of the other; (2) both debts consist in a sum of :money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter has been stated; (3) the two (2) debts be due; (4) they be liquidated and demandable; (5) over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor. That compensation had been the practice in the past can set no valid precedent. Such a practice has no legal basis. Lastly, R.A. No. 6952 does not authorize oil companies to offset their claims against their OPSF contributions. Instead, it prohibits the government from paying any amount from the Petroleum Price Standby Fund to oil companies which have outstanding obligations with the government, without said obligation being offset first subject to the rules on compensation in the Civil Code. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING the challenged decision of the Commission on Audit, except that portion thereof disallowing petitioner's claim for reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power Corporation, which is hereby allowed. With costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur.

17

G.R. No. L-18994

June 29, 1963

MELECIO R. DOMINGO, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, petitioner, vs. HON. LORENZO C. GARLITOS, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, and SIMEONA K. PRICE, as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the late Walter Scott Price, respondents. Office of the Solicitor General and Atty. G. H. Mantolino for petitioner. Benedicto and Martinez for respondents. LABRADOR, J.: This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus against the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Ron. Lorenzo C. Garlitos, presiding, seeking to annul certain orders of the court and for an order in this Court directing the respondent court below to execute the judgment in favor of the Government against the estate of Walter Scott Price for internal revenue taxes. It appears that in Melecio R. Domingo vs. Hon. Judge S. C. Moscoso, G.R. No. L-14674, January 30, 1960, this Court declared as final and executory the order for the payment by the estate of the estate and inheritance taxes, charges and penalties, amounting to P40,058.55, issued by the Court of First Instance of Leyte in, special proceedings No. 14 entitled "In the matter of the Intestate Estate of the Late Walter Scott Price." In order to enforce the claims against the estate the fiscal presented a petition dated June 21, 1961, to the court below for the execution of the judgment. The petition was, however, denied by the court which held that the execution is not justifiable as the Government is indebted to the estate under administration in the amount of P262,200. The orders of the court below dated August 20, 1960 and September 28, 1960, respectively, are as follows: Atty. Benedicto submitted a copy of the contract between Mrs. Simeona K. Price, Administratrix of the estate of her late husband Walter Scott Price and Director Zoilo Castrillo of the Bureau of Lands dated September 19, 1956 and acknowledged before Notary Public Salvador V. Esguerra, legal adviser in Malacaang to Executive Secretary De Leon dated December 14, 1956, the note of His Excellency, Pres. Carlos P. Garcia, to Director Castrillo dated August 2, 1958, directing the latter to pay to Mrs. Price the sum ofP368,140.00, and an extract of page 765 of Republic Act No. 2700 appropriating the sum of P262.200.00 for the payment to the Leyte Cadastral Survey, Inc., represented by the administratrix Simeona K. Price, as directed in the above note of the President. Considering these facts, the Court orders that the payment of inheritance taxes in the sum of P40,058.55 due the Collector of Internal Revenue as ordered paid by this Court on July 5, 1960 in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court promulgated July 30, 1960 in G.R. No. L-14674, be deducted from the amount of P262,200.00 due and payable to the Administratrix Simeona K. Price, in this estate, the balance to be paid by the Government to her without further delay. (Order of August 20, 1960) The Court has nothing further to add to its order dated August 20, 1960 and it orders that the payment of the claim of the Collector of Internal Revenue be deferred until the Government shall have paid its accounts to the administratrix herein amounting to P262,200.00. It may not be amiss to repeat that it is only fair for the Government, as a debtor, to its accounts to its citizens-creditors before it can insist in the prompt payment of the latter's account to it, specially taking into consideration that the amount due to the Government draws interests while the credit due to the present state does not accrue any interest. (Order of September 28, 1960) The petition to set aside the above orders of the court below and for the execution of the claim of the Government against the estate must be denied for lack of merit. The ordinary procedure by which to settle claims of indebtedness against the estate of a deceased person, as an inheritance tax, is for the claimant to present a claim before the probate court so that said court may order the administrator to pay the amount thereof. To such effect is the decision of this Court in Aldamiz vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-2360, Dec. 29, 1949, thus:

18 . . . a writ of execution is not the proper procedure allowed by the Rules of Court for the payment of debts and expenses of administration. The proper procedure is for the court to order the sale of personal estate or the sale or mortgage of real property of the deceased and all debts or expenses of administrator and with the written notice to all the heirs legatees and devisees residing in the Philippines, according to Rule 89, section 3, and Rule 90, section 2. And when sale or mortgage of real estate is to be made, the regulations contained in Rule 90, section 7, should be complied with.1wph1.t Execution may issue only where the devisees, legatees or heirs have entered into possession of their respective portions in the estate prior to settlement and payment of the debts and expenses of administration and it is later ascertained that there are such debts and expenses to be paid, in which case "the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their several liabilities, and order how much and in what manner each person shall contribute, and may issue execution if circumstances require" (Rule 89, section 6; see also Rule 74, Section 4; Emphasis supplied.) And this is not the instant case. The legal basis for such a procedure is the fact that in the testate or intestate proceedings to settle the estate of a deceased person, the properties belonging to the estate are under the jurisdiction of the court and such jurisdiction continues until said properties have been distributed among the heirs entitled thereto. During the pendency of the proceedings all the estate is in custodia legis and the proper procedure is not to allow the sheriff, in case of the court judgment, to seize the properties but to ask the court for an order to require the administrator to pay the amount due from the estate and required to be paid. Another ground for denying the petition of the provincial fiscal is the fact that the court having jurisdiction of the estate had found that the claim of the estate against the Government has been recognized and an amount of P262,200 has already been appropriated for the purpose by a corresponding law (Rep. Act No. 2700). Under the above circumstances, both the claim of the Government for inheritance taxes and the claim of the intestate for services rendered have already become overdue and demandable is well as fully liquidated. Compensation, therefore, takes place by operation of law, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code, and both debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount, thus: ART. 1200. When all the requisites mentioned in article 1279 are present, compensation takes effect by operation of law, and extinguished both debts to the concurrent amount, eventhough the creditors and debtors are not aware of the compensation. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner has no clear right to execute the judgment for taxes against the estate of the deceased Walter Scott Price. Furthermore, the petition for certiorari and mandamus is not the proper remedy for the petitioner. Appeal is the remedy. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, without costs. Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Bengzon, C.J., took no part. G.R. No. L-19707 August 17, 1967

PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents. Ponce Enrile, Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Belo, for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. CASTRO, J.: The petitioner is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of oxygen and acetylene gases. During the period from June 2, 1953 to June 30, 1958, it made various sales of its products to the National Power Corporation, an agency of

19 the Philippine Government, and to the Voice of America an agency of the United States Government. The sales to the NPC amounted to P145,866.70, while those to the VOA amounted to P1,683, on account of which the respondent Commission of Internal Revenue assessed against, and demanded from, the petitioner the payment of P12,910.60 as deficiency sales tax and surcharge, pursuant to the following-provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code: Sec. 186. Percentage tax on sales of other articles.There shall be levied, assessed and collected once only on every original sale, barter, exchange, and similar transaction either for nominal or valuable considerations, intended to transfer ownership of, or title to, the articles not enumerated in sections one hundred and eighty-four and one hundred and eighty-five a tax equivalent to seven per centum of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the articles so sold, bartered exchanged, or transferred, such tax to be paid by the manufacturer or producer: . . . . Sec. 183. Payment of percentage taxes.(a) In general.It shall be the duty of every person conducting business on which a percentage tax is imposed under this Title, to make a true and complete return of the amount of his, her, or its gross monthly sales, receipts or earnings, or gross value of output actually removed from the factory or mill warehouse and within twenty days after the end of each month, pay the tax due thereon: Provided, That any person retiring from a business subject to the percentage tax shall notify the nearest internal revenue officer thereof, file his return or declaration and pay the tax due thereon within twenty days after closing his business. If the percentage tax on any business is not paid within the time specified above, the amount of the tax shall be increased by twenty-five per centum, the increment to be a part of the tax. The petitioner denied liability for the payment of the tax on the ground that both the NPC and the VOA are exempt from taxation. It asked for a reconsideration of the assessment and, failing to secure one, appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. The court ruled that the tax on the sale of articles or goods in section 186 of the Code is a tax on the manufacturer and not on the buyer with the result that the "petitioner Philippine Acetylene Company, the manufacturer or producer of oxygen and acetylene gases sold to the National Power Corporation, cannot claim exemption from the payment of sales tax simply because its buyer the National Power Corporation is exempt from the payment of all taxes." With respect to the sales made to the VOA, the court held that goods purchased by the American Government or its agencies from manufacturers or producers are exempt from the payment of the sales tax under the agreement between the Government of the Philippines and that of the United States, provided the purchases are supported by certificates of exemption, and since purchases amounting to only P558, out of a total of P1,683, were not covered by certificates of exemption, only the sales in the sum of P558 were subject to the payment of tax. Accordingly, the assessment was revised and the petitioner's liability was reduced from P12,910.60, as assessed by the respondent commission, to P12,812.16. 1 The petitioner appealed to this Court. Its position is that it is not liable for the payment of tax on the sales it made to the NPC and the VOA because both entities are exempt from taxation. I The NPC enjoys tax exemption by virtue of an act2 of Congress which provides as follows: Sec. 2. To facilitate the payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall be exempt from all taxes, except real property tax, and from all duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities. It is contended that the immunity thus given to the NPC would be impaired by the imposition of a tax on sales made to it because while the tax is paid by the manufacturer or producer, the tax is ultimately shifted by the latter to the former. The petitioner invokes in support of its position a 1954 opinion of the Secretary of Justice which ruled that the NPC is exempt from the payment of all taxes "whether direct or indirect." We begin with an analysis of the nature of the percentage (sales) tax imposed by section 186 of the Code. Is it a tax on the producer or on the purchaser? Statutes of the type under consideration, which impose a tax on sales, have been described as "act[s] with schizophrenic symptoms,"3 as they apparently have two faces one that of a vendor tax, the other, a

20 vendee tax. Fortunately for us the provisions of the Code throw some light on the problem. The Code states that the sales tax "shall be paid by the manufacturer or producer," 4 who must "make a true and complete return of the amount of his, her or its gross monthly sales, receipts or earnings or gross value of output actually removed from the factory or mill warehouse and within twenty days after the end of each month, pay the tax due thereon." 5 But it is argued that a sales tax is ultimately passed on to the purchaser, and that, so far as the purchaser is an entity like the NPC which is exempt from the payment of "all taxes, except real property tax," the tax cannot be collected from sales. Many years ago, Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed dissatisfaction with the use of the phrase "pass the tax on." Writing the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lash's Products v. United States,6 he said: "The phrase 'passed the tax on' is inaccurate, as obviously the tax is laid and remains on the manufacturer and on him alone. The purchaser does not really pay the tax. He pays or may pay the seller more for the goods because of the seller's obligation, but that is all. . . . The price is the sum total paid for the goods. The amount added because of the tax is paid to get the goods and for nothing else. Therefore it is part of the price . . .". It may indeed be that the incidence of the tax ultimately settles on the purchaser, but it is not for that reason alone that one may validly argue that it is a tax on the purchaser. The exemption granted to the NPC may be likened to the immunity of the Federal Government from state taxation and vice versa in the federal system of government of the United States. In the early case of Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi7 the doctrine of intergovernment mental tax immunity was held as prohibiting the imposition of a tax on sales of gasoline made to the Federal Government. Said the Supreme court of the United States: A charge at the prescribed. rate is made on account of every gallon acquired by the United States. It is immaterial that the seller and not the purchaser is required to report and make payment to the state. Sale and purchase constitute a transaction by which the tax is measured and on which the burden rests. . . . The necessary operation of these enactments when so construed is directly to retard, impede and burden the exertion by the United States, of its constitutional powers to operate the fleet and hospital. . . . To use the number of gallons sold the United States as a measure of the privilege tax is in substance and legal effect to tax the sale. . . . And that is to tax the United States to exact tribute on its transactions and apply the same to the support of the state. 1wph1.t Justice Holmes did not agree. In a powerful dissent joined by Justices Brandeis and Stone, he said: If the plaintiff in error had paid the tax and added it to the price the government would have nothing to say. It could take the gasoline or leave it but it could not require the seller to abate his charge even if it had been arbitrarily increased in the hope of getting more from the government than could be got from the public at large. . . . It does not appear that the government would have refused to pay a price that included the tax if demanded, but if the government had refused it would not have exonerated the seller. . . . . . . I am not aware that the President, the Members of the Congress, the Judiciary or to come nearer to the case at hand, the Coast Guard or the officials of the Veterans' Hospital [to which the sales were made], because they are instrumentalities of government and cannot function naked and unfed, hitherto have been held entitled to have their bills for food and clothing cut down so far as their butchers and tailors have been taxed on their sales; and I had not supposed that the butchers and tailors could omit from their tax returns all receipts from the large class of customers to which I have referred. The question of interference with Government, I repeat, is one of reasonableness and degree and it seems to me that the interference in this case is too remote. But time was not long in coming to confirm the soundness of Holmes' position. Soon it became obvious that to test the constitutionality of a statute by determining the party on which the legal incidence of the tax fell was an unsatisfactory way of doing things. The fall of the bastion was signalled by Chief Justice Hughes' statement in James v. Dravo Constructing Co.8 that "These cases [referring to Panhandle and Indian Motorcycle Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 570 (1931)] have been distinguished and must be deemed to be limited to their particular facts." In 1941, Alabama v. King & Boozer9 held that the constitutional immunity of the United States from state taxation was not infringed by the imposition of a state sales tax with which the seller was chargeable but which he was required to collect

21 from the buyer, in respect of materials purchased by a contractor with the United States on a cost-plus basis for use in carrying out its contract, despite the fact that the economic burden of the tax was borne by the United States. The asserted right of the one to be free of taxation by the other does not spell immunity from paying the added costs, attributable to the taxation of those who furnish supplies to the Government and who have been granted no tax immunity. So far as a different view has prevailed, see Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi and Graves v. Texas Co., supra, we think it no longer tenable. Further inroads into the doctrine of Panhandle were made in 1943 when the U.S. Supreme Court held that immunity from state regulation in the performance of governmental functions by Federal officers and agencies did not extend to those who merely contracted to furnish supplies or render services to the government even though as a result of an increase in the price of such supplies or services attributable to the state regulation, its ultimate effect may be to impose an additional economic burden on the Government.10 But if a complete turnabout from the rule announced in Panhandle was yet to be made, it was so made in 1952 inEsso Standard Oil v. Evans11 which held that a contractor is not exempt from the payment of a state privilege tax on the business of storing gasoline simply because the Federal Government with which it has a contract for the storage of gasoline is immune from state taxation. This tax was imposed because Esso stored gasoline. It is not . . . based on the worth of the government property. Instead, the amount collected is graduated in accordance with the exercise of Esso's privilege to engage in such operations; so it is not "on" the federal property. . . . Federal ownership of the fuel will not immunize such a private contractor from the tax on storage. It may generally, as it did here, burden the United States financially. But since James vs. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 151, 82 L. ed. 155, 167, 58 S. Ct. 208, 114 ALR 318, this has been no fatal flaw. . . . 12 We have determined the current status of the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity in the United States, by showing the drift of the decisions following announcement of the original rule, to point up the that fact that even in those cases where exemption from tax was sought on the ground of state immunity, the attempt has not met with success. As Thomas Reed Powell noted in 1945 in reviewing the development of the doctrine: Since the Dravo case settled that it does not matter that the economic burden of the gross receipts tax may be shifted to the Government, it could hardly matter that the shift comes about by explicit agreement covering taxes rather than by being absorbed in a higher contract price by bidders for a contract. The situation differed from that in the Panhandle and similar cases in that they involved but two parties whereas here the transaction was tripartite. These cases are condemned in so far as they rested on the economic ground of the ultimate incidence of the burden being on the Government, but this condemnation still leaves open the question whether either the state or the United States when acting in governmental matters may be made legally liable to the other for a tax imposed on it as vendee. The carefully chosen language of the Chief Justice keeps these cases from foreclosing the issue. . . . Yet at the time it would have been a rash man who would find in this a dictum that a sales tax clearly on the Government as purchaser is invalid or a dictum that Congress may immunize its contractors. 13 If a claim of exemption from sales tax based on state immunity cannot command assent, much less can a claim resting on statutory grant. It may indeed be that the economic burden of the tax finally falls on the purchaser; when it does the tax becomes a part of the price which the purchaser must pay. It does not matter that an additional amount is billed as tax to the purchaser. The method of listing the price and the tax separately and defining taxable gross receipts as the amount received less the amount of the tax added, merely avoids payment by the seller of a tax on the amount of the tax. The effect is still the same, namely, that the purchaser does not pay the tax. He pays or may pay the seller more for the goods because of the seller's obligation, but that is all and the amount added because of the tax is paid to get the goods and for nothing else. 14

22 But the tax burden may not even be shifted to the purchaser at all. A decision to absorb the burden of the tax is largely a matter of economics.15 Then it can no longer be contended that a sales tax is a tax on the purchaser. We therefore hold that the tax imposed by section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code is a tax on the manufacturer or producer and not a tax on the purchaser except probably in a very remote and inconsequential sense. Accordingly its levy on the sales made to tax-exempt entities like the NPC is permissible. II This conclusion should dispose of the same issue with respect to sales made to the VOA, except that a claim is here made that the exemption of such sales from taxation rests on stronger grounds. Even the Court of Tax Appeals appears to share this view as is evident from the following portion of its decision: With regard to petitioner's sales to the Voice of America, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent are in agreement that the Voice of America is an agency of the United States Government and as such, all goods purchased locally by it directly from manufacturers or producers are exempt from the payment of the sales tax under the provisions of the agreement between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the United States, (See Commonwealth Act No. 733) provided such purchases are supported by serially numbered Certificates of Tax Exemption issued by the vendee-agency, as required by General Circular No. V-41, dated October 16, 1947. . . . The circular referred to reads: Goods purchased locally by U.S. civilian agencies directly from manufacturers, producers or importers shall be exempt from the sales tax. It was issued purportedly to implement the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America Concerning Military Bases,16 but we find nothing in the language of the Agreement to warrant the general exemption granted by that circular. The pertinent provisions of the Agreement read: ARTICLE V. Exemption from Customs and Other Duties No import, excise, consumption or other tax, duty or impost shall be charged on material, equipment, supplies or goods, including food stores and clothing, for exclusive use in the construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases, consigned to, or destined for, the United States authorities and certified by them to be for such purposes. ARTICLE XVIII.Sales and Services Within the Bases 1. It is mutually agreed that the United States Shall have the right to establish on bases, free of all licenses; fees; sales, excise or other taxes, or imposts; Government agencies, including concessions, such as sales commissaries and post exchanges, messes and social clubs, for the exclusive use of the United States military forces and authorized civilian personnel and their families. The merchandise or services sold or dispensed by such agencies shall be free of all taxes, duties and inspection by the Philippine authorities. . . . Thus only sales made "for exclusive use in the construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases," in a word, only sales to the quartermaster, are exempt under article V from taxation. Sales of goods to any other party even if it be an agency of the United States, such as the VOA, or even to the quartermaster but for a different purpose, are not free from the payment of the tax. On the other hand, article XVIII exempts from the payment of the tax sales made within the base by (not sales to) commissaries and the like in recognition of the principle that a sales tax is a tax on the seller and not on the purchaser.

23 It is a familiar learning in the American law of taxation that tax exemption must be strictly construed and that the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that such was the intention of the parties.17 Hence, in so far as the circular of the Bureau of Internal Revenue would give the tax exemptions in the Agreement an expansive construction it is void. We hold, therefore, that sales to the VOA are subject to the payment of percentage taxes under section 186 of the Code. The petitioner is thus liable for P12,910.60, computed as follows: Sales to NPC Sales to VOA Total sales subject to tax 7% sales tax due thereon Add: 25% surcharge Total amount due and collectible P145,866.70 P 1,683.00 P147,549.70 P 10,328.48 P 2,582.12 P 12,910.60

Accordingly, the decision a quo is modified by ordering the petitioner to pay to the respondent Commission the amount of P12,910.60 as sales tax and surcharge, with costs against the petitioner. Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur. Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., took no part. Footnotes
1

Petitioner's liability was computed as follows: Sales to NPC Sales to VOA Total sales subject to tax 7% sales tax due thereon Add 25% surcharge Total amount due and collectible P145,866.70 P 558.00 P146,424.70 P 10,249.73 P 2,562.41 P 12,812.16

Rep Act No. 987, 9 Laws & Res. 45 (1954), amending Rep. Act No. 353, 4 Laws & Res. 14 (1949). Oxford v. J. D. Jewell, Inc., 215 Ga. 616, 112 So. 2d 601 (1960). Nat. Int. Rev. Code sec. 186. Id. sec. 183. 278 U.S. 175 (1928).

277 U.S. 218 (1928). As a matter of legal history, it is pertinent to note here that the ruling in Panhandlewas applied in Standard Oil Co. v. Posadas, 55 Phil. 715 (1931).
8

302 U.S. 134 (1937).

24
9

314 U.S. 1 (1941). Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Comm'n, 318 U.S. 261 (1943). 347 U.S. 495 (1952). Id., at 499-500. "The case [Esso Standard Oil v. Evans] shows a further retreat from, if not a complete repudiation of the case of Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi . . . in which the doctrine of implied immunity was employed as the basis for holdings that a state excise or privilege tax upon gasoline dealers, though nondiscriminatory, was invalid in so far as it was sought to collect the tax with respect to sales of gasoline directly to the United States. No tenable distinction seems to be possible between a state privilege tax on sales of gasoline to the United States and such a tax on storage of gasoline owned by the United States." Annot., 97 L. Ed. 1182 (1953).

10

11

12

13

Powell, The Waning of Intergovernmental Tax Immunity, 58 Harv. L. Rev. 683, 659-660 (1945).

14

Western Lithograh Co vs. State Bd. of Equal., 78 P. 2d 731 (1938); see also Philippine Acetylene Co. vs. Blaquera, G.R. No. L-13728, Nov. 30, 1962.
15

"In the long run a sales tax is probably shifted to the consumer, but during the period when supply is being adjusted to changes in demand it must be in part absorbed. In practice the businessman will treat the levy as an added cost of operation and distribute it over his sales as he would any other cost, increasing by more than the amount of the tax prices of goods demand for which will be least affected and leaving other prices unchanged." 47 Harv. Ld. Rev. 860, 869 (1934).
16

March 26, 1947, 1-2 DFA TS 144, 43 UNTS 271, 43 O.G. 1020 (1947). E.g., Cherokee Brick & tile Co. vs. Redwine, 209 Ga. 691,75 S.E. 2d 550 (1953).

17

G.R. No. 88291 June 8, 1993 ERNESTO M. MACEDA, petitioner, vs. HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Office of the President, HON. VICENTE JAYME, ETC., ET AL., respondents. Angara, Abello, Concepcion & Cruz for respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for Caltex.

NOCON, J.: Just like lightning which does strike the same place twice in some instances, this matter of indirect tax exemption of the private respondent National Power Corporation (NPC) is brought to this Court a second time. Unfazed by the Decision We promulgated on May 31, 1991 1 petitioner Ernesto Maceda asks this Court to reconsider said Decision. Lest We be criticized for denying due process to the petitioner. We have decided to take a second look at the issues. In the process, a hearing was held on July 9, 1992 where all parties presented their respective arguments. Etched in this Court's mind are the paradoxical claims by both petitioner and private respondents that their respective positions are for the benefit of the Filipino people.

25 I A Chronological review of the relevant NPC laws, specially with respect to its tax exemption provisions, at the risk of being repetitious is, therefore, in order. On November 3, 1936, Commonwealth Act No. 120 was enacted creating the National Power Corporation, a public corporation, mainly to develop hydraulic power from all water sources in the Philippines. 2 The sum of P250,000.00 was appropriated out of the funds in the Philippine Treasury for the purpose of organizing the NPC and conducting its preliminary work. 3 The main source of funds for the NPC was the flotation of bonds in the capital markets 4 and these bonds . . . issued under the authority of this Act shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes by the Commonwealth of the Philippines, or by any authority, branch, division or political subdivision thereof and subject to the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved March 24, 1934, otherwise known as the Tydings McDuffle Law, which facts shall be stated upon the face of said bonds. . . . . 5 On June 24, 1938, C.A. No. 344 was enacted increasing to P550,000.00 the funds needed for the initial operations of the NPC and reiterating the provision of the flotation of bonds as soon as the first construction of any hydraulic power project was to be decided by the NPC Board. 6 The provision on tax exemption in relation to the issuance of the NPC bonds was neither amended nor deleted. On September 30, 1939, C.A. No. 495 was enacted removing the provision on the payment of the bond's principal and interest in "gold coins" but adding that payment could be made in United States dollars. 7 The provision on tax exemption in relation to the issuance of the NPC bonds was neither amended nor deleted. On June 4, 1949, Republic Act No. 357 was enacted authorizing the President of the Philippines to guarantee, absolutely and unconditionally, as primary obligor, the payment of any and all NPC loans. 8 He was also authorized to contract on behalf of the NPC with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) for NPC loans for the accomplishment of NPC's corporate objectives 9 and for the reconstruction and development of the economy of the country. 10 It was expressly stated that: Any such loan or loans shall be exempt from taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, contributions and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities. 11 On the same date, R.A. No. 358 was enacted expressly authorizing the NPC, for the first time, to incur other types of indebtedness, aside from indebtedness incurred by flotation of bonds. 12 As to the pertinent tax exemption provision, the law stated as follows: To facilitate payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall be exempt from all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities and municipalities. 13 On July 10, 1952, R.A. No. 813 was enacted amending R.A. No. 357 in that, aside from the IBRD, the President of the Philippines was authorized to negotiate, contract and guarantee loans with the Export-Import Bank of of Washigton, D.C., U.S.A., or any other international financial institution. 14 The tax provision for repayment of these loans, as stated in R.A. No. 357, was not amended. On June 2, 1954, R.A. No. 987 was enacted specifically to withdraw NPC's tax exemption for real estate taxes. As enacted, the law states as follows: To facilitate payment of its indebtedness, the National Power Corporation shall be exempt from all taxes, except real property tax, and from all duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, and municipalities. 15

26 On September 8, 1955, R.A. No. 1397 was enacted directing that the NPC projects to be funded by the increased indebtedness 16 should bear the National Economic Council's stamp of approval. The tax exemption provision related to the payment of this total indebtedness was not amended nor deleted. On June 13, 1958, R.A. No. 2055 was enacted increasing the total amount of foreign loans NPC was authorized to incur to US$100,000,000.00 from the US$50,000,000.00 ceiling in R.A. No. 357. 17 The tax provision related to the repayment of these loans was not amended nor deleted. On June 13, 1958, R.A. No. 2058 was enacting fixing the corporate life of NPC to December 31, 2000. provisions of laws and executive orders contrary to said R.A. No. 2058 were expressly repealed. 19
18

All laws or

On June 18, 1960, R.A. No 2641 was enacted converting the NPC from a public corporation into a stock corporation with an authorized capital stock of P100,000,000.00 divided into 1,000.000 shares having a par value of P100.00 each, with said capital stock wholly subscribed to by the Government. 20 No tax exemption was incorporated in said Act. On June 17, 1961, R.A. No. 3043 was enacted increasing the above-mentioned authorized capital stock to P250,000,000.00 with the increase to be wholly subscribed by the Government. 21 No tax provision was incorporated in said Act. On June 17, 1967, R.A. No 4897 was enacted. NPC's capital stock was increased again to P300,000,000.00, the increase to be wholly subscribed by the Government. No tax provision was incorporated in said Act. 22 On September 10, 1971, R.A. No. 6395 was enacted revising the charter of the NPC, C.A. No. 120, as amended. Declared as primary objectives of the nation were: Declaration of Policy. Congress hereby declares that (1) the comprehensive development, utilization and conservation of Philippine water resources for all beneficial uses, including power generation, and (2) the total electrification of the Philippines through the development of power from all sources to meet the needs of industrial development and dispersal and the needs of rural electrification are primary objectives of the nation which shall be pursued coordinately and supported by all instrumentalities and agencies of the government, including the financial institutions. 23 Section 4 of C.A. No. 120, was renumbered as Section 8, and divided into sections 8 (a) (Authority to incur Domestic Indebtedness) and Section 8 (b) (Authority to Incur Foreign Loans). As to the issuance of bonds by the NPC, Paragraph No. 3 of Section 8(a), states as follows: The bonds issued under the authority of this subsection shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes by the Republic of the Philippines, or by any authority, branch, division or political subdivision thereof which facts shall be stated upon the face of said bonds. . . . 24 As to the foreign loans the NPC was authorized to contract, Paragraph No. 5, Section 8(b), states as follows: The loans, credits and indebtedness contracted under this subsection and the payment of the principal, interest and other charges thereon, as well as the importation of machinery, equipment, materials and supplies by the Corporation, paid from the proceeds of any loan, credit or indebtedeness incurred under this Act, shall also be exempt from all taxes, fees, imposts, other charges and restrictions, including import restrictions, by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 25 A new section was added to the charter, now known as Section 13, R.A. No. 6395, which declares the non-profit character and tax exemptions of NPC as follows: The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment, as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay its indebtedness and

27 obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section one of this Act, the Corporation is hereby declared exempt: (a) From the payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges costs and service fees in any court or administrative proceedings in which it may be a party, restrictions and duties to the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, and municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities; (b) From all income taxes, franchise taxes and realty taxes to be paid to the National Government, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities; (c) From all import duties, compensating taxes and advanced sales tax, and wharfage fees on import of foreign goods required for its operations and projects; and (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and all other charges its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization, and sale of electric power. 26 On November 7, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 40 was issued declaring that the electrification of the entire country was one of the primary concerns of the country. And in connection with this, it was specifically stated that: The setting up of transmission line grids and the construction of associated generation facilities in Luzon, Mindanao and major islands of the country, including the Visayas, shall be the responsibility of the National Power Corporation (NPC) as the authorized implementing agency of the State. 27 xxx xxx xxx It is the ultimate objective of the State for the NPC to own and operate as a single integrated system all generating facilities supplying electric power to the entire area embraced by any grid set up by the NPC. 28 On January 22, 1974, P.D. No. 380 was issued giving extra powers to the NPC to enable it to fulfill its role under aforesaid P.D. No. 40. Its authorized capital stock was raised to P2,000,000,000.00, 29 its total domestic indebtedness was pegged at a maximum of P3,000,000,000.00 at any one time, 30 and the NPC was authorized to borrow a total of US$1,000,000,000.00 31 in foreign loans. The relevant tax exemption provision for these foreign loans states as follows: The loans, credits and indebtedness contracted under this subsection and the payment of the principal, interest and other charges thereon, as well as the importation of machinery, equipment, materials, supplies and services, by the Corporation, paid from the proceeds of any loan, credit or indebtedness incurred under this Act, shall also be exempt from all direct and indirect taxes, fees, imposts, other charges and restrictions, including import restrictions previously and presently imposed, and to be imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 32 (Emphasis supplied) Section 13(a) and 13(d) of R.A. No 6395 were amended to read as follows: (a) From the payment of all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges and restrictions to the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities including the taxes, duties, fees, imposts and other charges provided for under the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, Republic Act Numbered Nineteen Hundred Thirty-Seven, as amended, and as further amended by Presidential Decree No. 34 dated October 27, 1972, and Presidential Decree No. 69, dated November 24, 1972, and costs and service fees in any court or administrative proceedings in which it may be a party;

28 xxx xxx xxx (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, and all other charges imposed directly or indirectly by the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization and sale of electric power. 33 (Emphasis supplied) On February 26, 1970, P.D. No. 395 was issued removing certain restrictions in the NPC's sale of electricity to its different customers. 34 No tax exemption provision was amended, deleted or added. On July 31, 1975, P.D. No. 758 was issued directing that P200,000,000.00 would be appropriated annually to cover the unpaid subscription of the Government in the NPC authorized capital stock, which amount would be taken from taxes accruing to the General Funds of the Government, proceeds from loans, issuance of bonds, treasury bills or notes to be issued by the Secretary of Finance for this particular purpose. 35 On May 27, 1976 P.D. No. 938 was issued (I)n view of the accelerated expansion programs for generation and transmission facilities which includes nuclear power generation, the present capitalization of National Power Corporation (NPC) and the ceilings for domestic and foreign borrowings are deemed insufficient; 36 xxx xxx xxx (I)n the application of the tax exemption provisions of the Revised Charter, the non-profit character of NPC has not been fully utilized because of restrictive interpretation of the taxing agencies of the government on said provisions; 37 xxx xxx xxx (I)n order to effect the accelerated expansion program and attain the declared objective of total electrification of the country, further amendments of certain sections of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 380, 395 and 758, have become imperative; 38 Thus NPC's capital stock was raised to P8,000,000,000.00, 39 the total domestic indebtedness ceiling was increased to P12,000,000,000.00, 40 the total foreign loan ceiling was raised to US$4,000,000,000.00 41 and Section 13 of R.A. No. 6395, was amended to read as follows: The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay to its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section one of this Act, the Corporation, including its subsidiaries, is hereby declared exempt from the payment of all forms of taxes, duties, fees, imposts as well as costs and service fees including filing fees, appeal bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or administrative proceedings. 42 II On the other hand, the pertinent tax laws involved in this controversy are P.D. Nos. 882, 1177, 1931 and Executive Order No. 93 (S'86). On January 30, 1976, P.D. No. 882 was issued withdrawing the tax exemption of NPC with regard to imports as follows: WHEREAS, importations by certain government agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporation, are exempt from the payment of customs duties and compensating tax; and

29 WHEREAS, in order to reduce foreign exchange spending and to protect domestic industries, it is necessary to restrict and regulate such tax-free importations. NOW THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, and do hereby decree and order the following: Sec. 1. All importations of any government agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations which are exempt from the payment of customs duties and internal revenue taxes, shall be subject to the prior approval of an Inter-Agency Committee which shall insure compliance with the following conditions: (a) That no such article of local manufacture are available in sufficient quantity and comparable quality at reasonable prices; (b) That the articles to be imported are directly and actually needed and will be used exclusively by the grantee of the exemption for its operations and projects or in the conduct of its functions; and (c) The shipping documents covering the importation are in the name of the grantee to whom the goods shall be delivered directly by customs authorities. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 3. The Committee shall have the power to regulate and control the tax-free importation of government agencies in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 1 hereof and the regulations to be promulgated to implement the provisions of this Decree. Provided, however, That any government agency or government-owned or controlled corporation, or any local manufacturer or business firm adversely affected by any decision or ruling of the Inter-Agency Committee may file an appeal with the Office of the President within ten days from the date of notice thereof. . . . . xxx xxx xxx Sec. 6. . . . . Section 13 of Republic Act No. 6395; . . .. and all similar provisions of all general and special laws and decrees are hereby amended accordingly. xxx xxx xxx On July 30, 1977, P.D. 1177 was issued as it was . . . declared the policy of the State to formulate and implement a National Budget that is an instrument of national development, reflective of national objectives, strategies and plans. The budget shall be supportive of and consistent with the socio-economic development plan and shall be oriented towards the achievement of explicit objectives and expected results, to ensure that funds are utilized and operations are conducted effectively, economically and efficiently. The national budget shall be formulated within a context of a regionalized government structure and of the totality of revenues and other receipts, expenditures and borrowings of all levels of government-owned or controlled corporations. The budget shall likewise be prepared within the context of the national long-term plan and of a long-term budget program. 43 In line with such policy, the law decreed that All units of government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, shall pay income taxes, customs duties and other taxes and fees are imposed under revenues laws: provided, that organizations otherwise exempted by law from the payment of such taxes/duties may ask for a subsidy from the General Fund in the exact amount of taxes/duties due: provided, further, that a procedure shall be established by the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of the Budget, whereby such subsidies shall automatically be considered as both revenue and expenditure of the General Fund. 44

30 The law also declared that [A]ll laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Decree are hereby repealed and/or modified accordingly. 45 On July 11, 1984, most likely due to the economic morass the Government found itself in after the Aquino assassination, P.D. No. 1931 was issued to reiterate that: WHEREAS, Presidential Decree No. 1177 has already expressly repealed the grant of tax privileges to any government-owned or controlled corporation and all other units of government; 46 and since there was a . . . need for government-owned or controlled corporations and all other units of government enjoying tax privileges to share in the requirements of development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the duties, taxes and other charges due from them. 47 it was decreed that: Sec. 1. The provisions of special on general law to the contrary notwithstanding, all exemptions from the payment of duties, taxes, fees, imposts and other charges heretofore granted in favor of governmentowned or controlled corporations including their subsidiaries, are hereby withdrawn. Sec. 2. The President of the Philippines and/or the Minister of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board created under Presidential Decree No. 776, is hereby empowered to restore, partially or totally, the exemptions withdrawn by Section 1 above, any applicable tax and duty, taking into account, among others, any or all of the following: 1) The effect on the relative price levels; 2) The relative contribution of the corporation to the revenue generation effort; 3) The nature of the activity in which the corporation is engaged in; or 4) In general the greater national interest to be served. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 5. The provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1177 as well as all other laws, decrees, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly. On December 17, 1986, E.O. No. 93 (S'86) was issued with a view to correct presidential restoration or grant of tax exemption to other government and private entities without benefit of review by the Fiscal Incentives Review Board, to wit: WHEREAS, Presidential Decree Nos. 1931 and 1955 issued on June 11, 1984 and October 14, 1984, respectively, withdrew the tax and duty exemption privileges, including the preferential tax treatment, of government and private entities with certain exceptions, in order that the requirements of national economic development, in terms of fiscals and other resources, may be met more adequately; xxx xxx xxx

31 WHEREAS, in addition to those tax and duty exemption privileges were restored by the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB), a number of affected entities, government and private, had their tax and duty exemption privileges restored or granted by Presidential action without benefit or review by the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB); xxx xxx xxx Since it was decided that: [A]ssistance to government and private entities may be better provided where necessary by explicit subsidy and budgetary support rather than tax and duty exemption privileges if only to improve the fiscal monitoring aspects of government operations. It was thus ordered that: Sec. 1. The Provisions of any general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding, all tax and duty incentives granted to government and private entities are hereby withdrawn, except: a) those covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution; b) those conferred by effective internation agreement to which the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory; c) those enjoyed by enterprises registered with: (i) the Board of Investment pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1789, as amended; (ii) the Export Processing Zone Authority, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 66 as amended; (iii) the Philippine Veterans Investment Development Corporation Industrial Authority pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 538, was amended. d) those enjoyed by the copper mining industry pursuant to the provisions of Letter of Instructions No. 1416; e) those conferred under the four basic codes namely: (i) the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended; (ii) the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended; (iii) the Local Tax Code, as amended; (iv) the Real Property Tax Code, as amended; f) those approved by the President upon the recommendation of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board. Sec. 2. The Fiscal Incentives Review Board created under Presidential Decree No. 776, as amended, is hereby authorized to: a) restore tax and/or duty exemptions withdrawn hereunder in whole or in part;

32 b) revise the scope and coverage of tax and/or duty exemption that may be restored; c) impose conditions for the restoration of tax and/or duty exemption; d) prescribe the date of period of effectivity of the restoration of tax and/or duty exemption; e) formulate and submit to the President for approval, a complete system for the grant of subsidies to deserving beneficiaries, in lieu of or in combination with the restoration of tax and duty exemptions or preferential treatment in taxation, indicating the source of funding therefor, eligible beneficiaries and the terms and conditions for the grant thereof taking into consideration the international commitment of the Philippines and the necessary precautions such that the grant of subsidies does not become the basis for countervailing action. Sec. 3. In the discharge of its authority hereunder, the Fiscal Incentives Review Board shall take into account any or all of the following considerations: a) the effect on relative price levels; b) relative contribution of the beneficiary to the revenue generation effort; c) nature of the activity the beneficiary is engaged; and d) in general, the greater national interest to be served. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 5. All laws, orders, issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. E.O. No. 93 (S'86) was decreed to be effective 48 upon the promulgation of the rules and regulations, to be issued by the Ministry of Finance. 49 Said rules and regulations were promulgated and published in the Official Gazette on February 23, 1987. These became effective on the 15th day after promulgation 50 in the Official Gasetter, 51which 15th day was March 10, 1987. III Now to some definitions. We refer to the very simplistic approach that all would-be lawyers, learn in their TAXATION I course, which fro convenient reference, is as follows: Classifications or kinds of Taxes: According to Persons who pay or who bear the burden: a. Direct Tax the where the person supposed to pay the tax really pays it. WITHOUT transferring the burden to someone else. Examples: Individual income tax, corporate income tax, transfer taxes (estate tax, donor's tax), residence tax, immigration tax b. Indirect Tax that where the tax is imposed upon goods BEFORE reaching the consumer who ultimately pays for it, not as a tax, but as a part of the purchase price. Examples: the internal revenue indirect taxes (specific tax, percentage taxes, (VAT) and the tariff and customs indirect taxes (import duties, special import tax and other dues) 52

33 IV To simply matter, the issues raised by petitioner in his motion for reconsideration can be reduced to the following: (1) What kind of tax exemption privileges did NPC have? (2) For what periods in time were these privileges being enjoyed? (3) If there are taxes to be paid, who shall pay for these taxes? V Petitioner contends that P.D. No. 938 repealed the indirect tax exemption of NPC as the phrase "all forms of taxes etc.," in its section 10, amending Section 13, R.A. No. 6395, as amended by P.D. No. 380, does not expressly include "indirect taxes." His point is not well-taken. A chronological review of the NPC laws will show that it has been the lawmaker's intention that the NPC was to be completely tax exempt from all forms of taxes direct and indirect. NPC's tax exemptions at first applied to the bonds it was authorized to float to finance its operations upon its creation by virtue of C.A. No. 120. When the NPC was authorized to contract with the IBRD for foreign financing, any loans obtained were to be completely tax exempt. After the NPC was authorized to borrow from other sources of funds aside issuance of bonds it was again specifically exempted from all types of taxes "to facilitate payment of its indebtedness." Even when the ceilings for domestic and foreign borrowings were periodically increased, the tax exemption privileges of the NPC were maintained. NPC's tax exemption from real estate taxes was, however, specifically withdrawn by Rep. Act No. 987, as above stated. The exemption was, however, restored by R.A. No. 6395. Section 13, R.A. No. 6395, was very comprehensive in its enumeration of the tax exemptions allowed NPC. Its section 13(d) is the starting point of this bone of contention among the parties. For easy reference, it is reproduced as follows: [T]he Corporation is hereby declared exempt: xxx xxx xxx (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts and all other charges imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization, and sale of electric power. P.D. No. 380 added phrase "directly or indirectly" to said Section 13(d), which now reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx (d) From all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, and all other charges imposed directly or indirectly by the Republic of the Philippines, its provinces, cities, municipalities and other government agencies and instrumentalities, on all petroleum products used by the Corporation in the generation, transmission, utilization and sale of electric power. (Emphasis supplied)

34 Then came P.D. No. 938 which amended Sec. 13(a), (b), (c) and (d) into one very simple paragraph as follows: The Corporation shall be non-profit and shall devote all its returns from its capital investment as well as excess revenues from its operation, for expansion. To enable the Corporation to pay its indebtedness and obligations and in furtherance and effective implementation of the policy enunciated in Section one of this Act, the Corporation, including its subsidiaries, is hereby declared exempt from the payment of ALL FORMS OF taxes, duties, fees, imposts as well as costs and service fees including filing fees, appeal bonds, supersedeas bonds, in any court or administrative proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner reminds Us that: [I]t must be borne in mind that Presidential Decree Nos. 380 and 938 were issued by one man, acting as such the Executive and Legislative. 53 xxx xxx xxx [S]ince both presidential decrees were made by the same person, it would have been very easy for him to retain the same or similar language used in P.D. No. 380 P.D. No. 938 if his intention were to preserve the indirect tax exemption of NPC. 54 Actually, P.D. No. 938 attests to the ingenuousness of then President Marcos no matter what his fault were. It should be noted that section 13, R.A. No. 6395, provided for tax exemptions for the following items: 13(a) : court or administrative proceedings; 13(b) : income, franchise, realty taxes; 13(c) : import of foreign goods required for its operations and projects; 13(d) : petroleum products used in generation of electric power. P.D. No. 938 lumped up 13(b), 13(c), and 13(d) into the phrase "ALL FORMS OF TAXES, ETC.,", included 13(a) under the "as well as" clause and added PNOC subsidiaries as qualified for tax exemptions. This is the only conclusion one can arrive at if he has read all the NPC laws in the order of enactment or issuance as narrated above in part I hereof. President Marcos must have considered all the NPC statutes from C.A. No. 120 up to its latest amendments, P.D. No. 380, P.D. No. 395 and P.D. No. 759, AND came up 55 with a very simple Section 13, R.A. No. 6395, as amended by P.D. No. 938. One common theme in all these laws is that the NPC must be enable to pay its indebtedness 56 which, as of P.D. No. 938, was P12 Billion in total domestic indebtedness, at any one time, and U$4 Billion in total foreign loans at any one time. The NPC must be and has to be exempt from all forms of taxes if this goal is to be achieved. By virtue of P.D. No. 938 NPC's capital stock was raised to P8 Billion. It must be remembered that to pay the government share in its capital stock P.D. No. 758 was issued mandating that P200 Million would be appropriated annually to cover the said unpaid subscription of the Government in NPC's authorized capital stock. And significantly one of the sources of this annual appropriation of P200 million is TAX MONEY accruing to the General Fund of the Government. It does not stand to reason then that former President Marcos would order P200 Million to be taken partially or totally from tax money to be used to pay the Government subscription in the NPC, on one hand, and then order the NPC to pay all its indirect taxes, on the other. The above conclusion that then President Marcos lumped up Sections 13 (b), 13 (c) and (d) into the phrase "All FORMS OF" is supported by the fact that he did not do the same for the tax exemption provision for the foreign loans to be incurred.

35 The tax exemption on foreign loans found in Section 8(b), R.A. No. 6395, reads as follows: The loans, credits and indebtedness contracted under this subsection and the payment of the principal, interest and other charges thereon, as well as the importation of machinery, equipment, materials and supplies by the Corporation, paid from the proceeds of any loan, credit or indebtedness incurred under this Act, shall also be exempt from all taxes, fees, imposts, other charges and restrictions, including import restrictions, by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. The same was amended by P.D. No. 380 as follows: The loans, credits and indebtedness contracted this subsection and the payment of the principal, interest and other charges thereon, as well as the importation of machinery, equipment, materials, supplies and services, by the Corporation, paid from the proceeds of any loan, credit or indebtedness incurred under this Act, shall also be exempt from all direct and indirect taxes, fees, imposts, other charges and restrictions, including import restrictions previously and presently imposed, and to be imposed by the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its agencies and political subdivisions. 58 (Emphasis supplied) P.D. No. 938 did not amend the same 59 and so the tax exemption provision in Section 8 (b), R.A. No. 6395, as amended by P.D. No. 380, still stands. Since the subject matter of this particular Section 8 (b) had to do only with loans and machinery imported, paid for from the proceeds of these foreign loans, THERE WAS NO OTHER SUBJECT MATTER TO LUMP IT UP WITH, and so, the tax exemption stood as is with the express mention of "direct and indirect" tax exemptions. And this "direct and indirect" tax exemption privilege extended to "taxes, fees, imposts, other charges . . . to be imposed" in the future surely, an indication that the lawmakers wanted the NPC to be exempt from ALL FORMS of taxes direct and indirect. It is crystal clear, therefore, that NPC had been granted tax exemption privileges for both direct and indirect taxes under P.D. No. 938. VI Five (5) years on into the now discredited New Society, the Government decided to rationalize government receipts and expenditures by formulating and implementing a National Budget. 60 The NPC, being a government owned and controlled corporation had to be shed off its tax exemption status privileges under P.D. No. 1177. It was, however, allowed to ask for a subsidy from the General Fund in the exact amount of taxes/duties due. Actually, much earlier, P.D. No. 882 had already repealed NPC's tax-free importation privileges. It allowed, however, NPC to appeal said repeal with the Office of the President and to avail of tax-free importation privileges under its Section 1, subject to the prior approval of an Inter-Agency Committed created by virtue of said P.D. No. 882. It is presumed that the NPC, being the special creation of the State, was allowed to continue its tax-free importations. This Court notes that petitioner brought to the attention of this Court, the matter of the abolition of NPC's tax exemption privileges by P.D. No. 1177 61 only in his Common Reply/Comment to private Respondents' "Opposition" and "Comment" to Motion for Reconsideration, four (4) months AFTER the motion for Reconsideration had been filed. During oral arguments heard on July 9, 1992, he proceeded to discuss this tax exemption withdrawal as explained by then Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos in opinion No. 133 (S '77). 62 A careful perusal of petitioner's senate Blue Ribbon Committee Report No. 474, the basis of the petition at bar, fails to yield any mention of said P.D. No. 1177's effect on NPC's tax exemption privileges. 63 Applying by analogy Pulido vs. Pablo,64 the court declares that the matter of P.D. No. 1177 abolishing NPC's tax exemption privileges was not seasonably invoked 65 by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the Court still has to discuss the effect of P.D. No. 1177 on the NPC tax exemption privileges as this statute has been reiterated twice in P.D. No. 1931. The express repeal of tax privileges of any government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC). NPC included, was reiterated in the fourth whereas clause of P.D. No. 1931's preamble. The subsidy provided for in Section 23, P.D. No. 1177, being inconsistent with Section 2, P.D. No. 1931, was deemed repealed as the Fiscal Incentives Revenue Board was tasked with recommending the partial or total restoration of tax exemptions withdrawn by Section 1, P.D. No. 1931.

57

36 The records before Us do not indicate whether or not NPC asked for the subsidy contemplated in Section 23, P.D. No. 1177. Considering, however, that under Section 16 of P.D. No. 1177, NPC had to submit to the Office of the President its request for the P200 million mandated by P.D. No. 758 to be appropriated annually by the Government to cover its unpaid subscription to the NPC authorized capital stock and that under Section 22, of the same P.D. No. NPC had to likewise submit to the Office of the President its internal operating budget for review due to capital inputs of the government (P.D. No. 758) and to the national government's guarantee of the domestic and foreign indebtedness of the NPC, it is clear that NPC was covered by P.D. No. 1177. There is reason to believe that NPC availed of subsidy granted to exempt GOCC's that suddenly found themselves having to pay taxes. It will be noted that Section 23, P.D. No. 1177, mandated that the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of the Budget had to establish the necessary procedure to accomplish the tax payment/tax subsidy scheme of the Government. In effect, NPC, did not put any cash to pay any tax as it got from the General Fund the amounts necessary to pay different revenue collectors for the taxes it had to pay. In his memorandum filed July 16, 1992, petitioner submits: [T]hat with the enactment of P.D. No. 1177 on July 30, 1977, the NPC lost all its duty and tax exemptions, whether direct or indirect. And so there was nothing to be withdrawn or to be restored under P.D. No. 1931, issued on June 11, 1984. This is evident from sections 1 and 2 of said P.D. No. 1931, which reads: "Section 1. The provisions of special or general law to the contrary notwithstanding, all exemptions from the payment of duties, taxes, fees, imports and other charges heretofore granted in favor of government-owned or controlled corporations including their subsidiaries are hereby withdrawn." Sec. 2. The President of the Philippines and/or the Minister of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board created under P.D. No. 776, is hereby empowered to restore partially or totally, the exemptions withdrawn by section 1 above. . . . Hence, P.D. No. 1931 did not have any effect or did it change NPC's status. Since it had already lost all its tax exemptions privilege with the issuance of P.D. No. 1177 seven (7) years earlier or on July 30, 1977, there were no tax exemptions to be withdrawn by section 1 which could later be restored by the Minister of Finance upon the recommendation of the FIRB under Section 2 of P.D. No. 1931. Consequently, FIRB resolutions No. 10-85, and 1-86, were all illegally and validly issued since FIRB acted beyond their statutory authority by creating and not merely restoring the tax exempt status of NPC. The same is true for FIRB Res. No. 17-87 which restored NPC's tax exemption under E.O. No. 93 which likewise abolished all duties and tax exemptions but allowed the President upon recommendation of the FIRB to restore those abolished. The Court disagrees. Applying by analogy the weight of authority that: When a revised and consolidated act re-enacts in the same or substantially the same terms the provisions of the act or acts so revised and consolidated, the revision and consolidation shall be taken to be a continuation of the former act or acts, although the former act or acts may be expressly repealed by the revised and consolidated act; and all rights and liabilities under the former act or acts are preserved and may be enforced. 66 the Court rules that when P.D. No. 1931 basically reenacted in its Section 1 the first half of Section 23, P.D. No. 1177, on withdrawal of tax exemption privileges of all GOCC's said Section 1, P.D. No. 1931 was deemed to be a continuation of the first half of Section 23, P.D. No. 1177, although the second half of Section 23, P.D. No. 177, on the subsidy scheme

37 for former tax exempt GOCCs had been expressly repealed by Section 2 with its institution of the FIRB recommendation of partial/total restoration of tax exemption privileges. The NPC tax privileges withdrawn by Section 1. P.D. No. 1931, were, therefore, the same NPC tax exemption privileges withdrawn by Section 23, P.D. No. 1177. NPC could no longer obtain a subsidy for the taxes it had to pay. It could, however, under P.D. No. 1931, ask for a total restoration of its tax exemption privileges, which, it did, and the same were granted under FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 67 and 1-86 68 as approved by the Minister of Finance. Consequently, contrary to petitioner's submission, FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 and 1-86 were both legally and validly issued by the FIRB pursuant to P.D. No. 1931. FIRB did not created NPC's tax exemption status but merely restored it. 69 Some quarters have expressed the view that P.D. No. 1931 was illegally issued under the now rather infamous Amendment No. 6 70 as there was no showing that President Marcos' encroachment on legislative prerogatives was justified under the then prevailing condition that he could legislate "only if the Batasang Pambansa 'failed or was unable to act inadequately on any matter that in his judgment required immediate action' to meet the 'exigency'. 71 Actually under said Amendment No. 6, then President Marcos could issue decrees not only when the Interim Batasang Pambansa failed or was unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his (Marcos') judgment required immediate action, but also when there existed a grave emergency or a threat or thereof. It must be remembered that said Presidential Decree was issued only around nine (9) months after the Philippines unilaterally declared a moratorium on its foreign debt payments 72 as a result of the economic crisis triggered by loss of confidence in the government brought about by the Aquino assassination. The Philippines was then trying to reschedule its debt payments. 73 One of the big borrowers was the NPC 74 which had a US$ 2.1 billion white elephant of a Bataan Nuclear Power Plant on its back. 75 From all indications, it must have been this grave emergency of a debt rescheduling which compelled Marcos to issue P.D. No. 1931, under his Amendment 6 power.76 The rule, therefore, that under the 1973 Constitution "no law granting a tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Batasang Pambansa" 77 does not apply as said P.D. No. 1931 was not passed by the Interim Batasang Pambansa but by then President Marcos under His Amendment No. 6 power. P.D. No. 1931 was, therefore, validly issued by then President Marcos under his Amendment No. 6 authority. Under E.O No. 93 (S'86) NPC's tax exemption privileges were again clipped by, this time, President Aquino. Its section 2 allowed the NPC to apply for the restoration of its tax exemption privileges. The same was granted under FIRB Resolution No. 17-87 78 dated June 24, 1987 which restored NPC's tax exemption privileges effective, starting March 10, 1987, the date of effectivity of E.O. No. 93 (S'86). FIRB Resolution No. 17-87 was approved by the President on October 5, 1987. 79 There is no indication, however, from the records of the case whether or not similar approvals were given by then President Marcos for FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 and 1- 86. This has led some quarters to believe that a "travesty of justice" might have occurred when the Minister of Finance approved his own recommendation as Chairman of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board as what happened in Zambales Chromate vs. Court of Appeals 80 when the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved a decision earlier rendered by him when he was the Director of Mines, 81 and inAnzaldo vs. Clave 82 where Presidential Executive Assistant Clave affirmed, on appeal to Malacaang, his own decision as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. 83 Upon deeper analysis, the question arises as to whether one can talk about "due process" being violated when FIRB Resolutions Nos. 10-85 and 1-86 were approved by the Minister of Finance when the same were recommended by him in his capacity as Chairman of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board. 84 In Zambales Chromite and Anzaldo, two (2) different parties were involved: mining groups and scientist-doctors, respectively. Thus, there was a need for procedural due process to be followed. In the case of the tax exemption restoration of NPC, there is no other comparable entity not even a single public or private corporation whose rights would be violated if NPC's tax exemption privileges were to be restored. While there

38 might have been a MERALCO before Martial Law, it is of public knowledge that the MERALCO generating plants were sold to the NPC in line with the State policy that NPC was to be the State implementing arm for the electrification of the entire country. Besides, MERALCO was limited to Manila and its environs. And as of 1984, there was no more MERALCO as a producer of electricity which could have objected to the restoration of NPC's tax exemption privileges. It should be noted that NPC was not asking to be granted tax exemption privileges for the first time. It was just asking that its tax exemption privileges be restored. It is for these reasons that, at least in NPC's case, the recommendation and approval of NPC's tax exemption privileges under FIRB Resolution Nos. 10-85 and 1-86, done by the same person acting in his dual capacities as Chairman of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board and Minister of Finance, respectively, do not violate procedural due process. While as above-mentioned, FIRB Resolution No. 17-87 was approved by President Aquino on October 5, 1987, the view has been expressed that President Aquino, at least with regard to E.O. 93 (S'86), had no authority to sub-delegate to the FIRB, which was allegedly not a delegate of the legislature, the power delegated to her thereunder. A misconception must be cleared up. When E.O No. 93 (S'86) was issued, President Aquino was exercising both Executive and Legislative powers. Thus, there was no power delegated to her, rather it was she who was delegating her power. She delegated it to the FIRB, which, for purposes of E.O No. 93 (S'86), is a delegate of the legislature. Clearly, she was not sub-delegating her power. And E.O. No. 93 (S'86), as a delegating law, was complete in itself it set forth the policy to be carried out 85 and it fixed the standard to which the delegate had to conform in the performance of his functions, 86 both qualities having been enunciated by this Court in Pelaez vs. Auditor General. 87 Thus, after all has been said, it is clear that the NPC had its tax exemption privileges restored from June 11, 1984 up to the present. VII The next question that projects itself is who pays the tax? The answer to the question could be gleamed from the manner by which the Commissaries of the Armed Forces of the Philippines sell their goods. By virtue of P.D. No. 83, 88 veterans, members of the Armed of the Philippines, and their defendants but groceries and other goods free of all taxes and duties if bought from any AFP Commissaries. In practice, the AFP Commissary suppliers probably treat the unchargeable specific, ad valorem and other taxes on the goods earmarked for AFP Commissaries as an added cost of operation and distribute it over the total units of goods sold as it would any other cost. Thus, even the ordinary supermarket buyer probably pays for the specific, ad valorem and other taxes which theses suppliers do not charge the AFP Commissaries. 89 IN MUCH THE SAME MANNER, it is clear that private respondents-oil companies have to absorb the taxes they add to the bunker fuel oil they sell to NPC. It should be stated at this juncture that, as early as May 14, 1954, the Secretary of Justice renders an opinion, 90wherein he stated and We quote: xxx xxx xxx Republic Act No. 358 exempts the National Power Corporation from "all taxes, duties, fees, imposts, charges, and restrictions of the Republic of the Philippines and its provinces, cities, and municipalities." This exemption is broad enough to include all taxes, whether direct or indirect, which the National Power

39 Corporation may be required to pay, such as the specific tax on petroleum products. That it is indirect or is of no amount [should be of no moment], for it is the corporation that ultimately pays it. The view which refuses to accord the exemption because the tax is first paid by the seller disregards realities and gives more importance to form than to substance. Equity and law always exalt substance over from . xxx xxx xxx Tax exemptions are undoubtedly to be construed strictly but not so grudgingly as knowledge that many impositions taxpayers have to pay are in the nature of indirect taxes. To limit the exemption granted the National Power Corporation to direct taxes notwithstanding the general and broad language of the statue will be to thwrat the legislative intention in giving exemption from all forms of taxes and impositions without distinguishing between those that are direct and those that are not. (Emphasis supplied) In view of all the foregoing, the Court rules and declares that the oil companies which supply bunker fuel oil to NPC have to pay the taxes imposed upon said bunker fuel oil sold to NPC. By the very nature of indirect taxation, the economic burden of such taxation is expected to be passed on through the channels of commerce to the user or consumer of the goods sold. Because, however, the NPC has been exempted from both direct and indirect taxation, the NPC must beheld exempted from absorbing the economic burden of indirect taxation. This means, on the one hand, that the oil companies which wish to sell to NPC absorb all or part of the economic burden of the taxes previously paid to BIR, which could they shift to NPC if NPC did not enjoy exemption from indirect taxes. This means also, on the other hand, that the NPC may refuse to pay the part of the "normal" purchase price of bunker fuel oil which represents all or part of the taxes previously paid by the oil companies to BIR. If NPC nonetheless purchases such oil from the oil companies because to do so may be more convenient and ultimately less costly for NPC than NPC itself importing and hauling and storing the oil from overseas NPC is entitled to be reimbursed by the BIR for that part of the buying price of NPC which verifiably represents the tax already paid by the oil company-vendor to the BIR. It should be noted at this point in time that the whole issue of who WILL pay these indirect taxes HAS BEEN RENDERED moot and academic by E.O. No. 195 issued on June 16, 1987 by virtue of which the ad valorem tax rate on bunker fuel oil was reduced to ZERO (0%) PER CENTUM. Said E.O. no. 195 reads as follows: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 195 AMENDING PARAGRAPH (b) OF SECTION 128 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED BY REVISING THE EXCISE TAX RATES OF CERTAIN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 1. Paragraph (b) of Section 128 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: Par. (b) For products subject to ad valorem tax only: PRODUCT AD VALOREM TAX RATE 1. . . . 2. . . . 3. . . . 4. Fuel oil, commercially known as bunker oil and on similar fuel oils having more or less the same generating power 0% xxx xxx xxx

40 Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. Done in the city of Manila, this 17th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eightyseven. (Emphasis supplied) The oil companies can now deliver bunker fuel oil to NPC without having to worry about who is going to bear the economic burden of the ad valorem taxes. What this Court will now dispose of are petitioner's complaints that some indirect tax money has been illegally refunded by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to the NPC and that more claims for refunds by the NPC are being processed for payment by the BIR. A case in point is the Tax Credit Memo issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in favor of the NPC last July 7, 1986 for P58.020.110.79 which were for "erroneously paid specific and ad valorem taxes during the period from October 31, 1984 to April 27, 1985. 91 Petitioner asks Us to declare this Tax Credit Memo illegal as the PNC did not have indirect tax exemptions with the enactment of P.D. No. 938. As We have already ruled otherwise, the only questions left are whether NPC Is entitled to a tax refund for the tax component of the price of the bunker fuel oil purchased from Caltex (Phils.) Inc. and whether the Bureau of Internal Revenue properly refunded the amount to NPC. After P.D. No. 1931 was issued on June 11, 1984 withdrawing the tax exemptions of all GOCCs NPC included, it was only on May 8, 1985 when the BIR issues its letter authority to the NPC authorizing it to withdraw tax-free bunker fuel oil from the oil companies pursuant to FIRB Resolution No. 1085. 92 Since the tax exemption restoration was retroactive to June 11, 1984 there was a need. therefore, to recover said amount as Caltex (PhiIs.) Inc. had already paid the BIR the specific and ad valorem taxes on the bunker oil it sold NPC during the period above indicated and had billed NPC correspondingly. 93 It should be noted that the NPC, in its letterclaim dated September 11, 1985 to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue DID NOT CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE that itself paid the P58.020,110.79 as part of the bunker fuel oil price it purchased from Caltex (Phils) Inc. 94 The law governing recovery of erroneously or illegally, collected taxes is section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended which reads as follows: Sec. 230. Recover of tax erroneously or illegally collected . No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any Manner wrongfully collected. until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment; Provided, however, That the Commissioner may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon which payment was made, such payment appears clearly, to have been erroneously paid. xxx xxx xxx Inasmuch as NPC filled its claim for P58.020,110.79 on September 11, 1985, 95 the Commissioner correctly issued the Tax Credit Memo in view of NPC's indirect tax exemption. Petitioner, however, asks Us to restrain the Commissioner from acting favorably on NPC's claim for P410.580,000.00 which represents specific and ad valorem taxes paid by the oil companies to the BIR from June 11, 1984 to the early part of 1986. 96 A careful examination of petitioner's pleadings and annexes attached thereto does not reveal when the alleged claim for a P410,580,000.00 tax refund was filed. It is only stated In paragraph No. 2 of the Deed of Assignment 97executed by and between NPC and Caltex (Phils.) Inc., as follows:

41 That the ASSIGNOR(NPC) has a pending tax credit claim with the Bureau of Internal Revenue amounting to P442,887,716.16. P58.020,110.79 of which is due to Assignor's oil purchases from the Assignee (Caltex [Phils.] Inc.) Actually, as the Court sees it, this is a clear case of a "Mexican standoff." We cannot restrain the BIR from refunding said amount because of Our ruling that NPC has both direct and indirect tax exemption privileges. Neither can We order the BIR to refund said amount to NPC as there is no pending petition for review on certiorari of a suit for its collection before Us. At any rate, at this point in time, NPC can no longer file any suit to collect said amount EVEN IF lt has previously filed a claim with the BIR because it is time-barred under Section 230 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. as amended, which states: In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty REGARDLESS of any supervening cause that may arise afterpayment. . . . (Emphasis supplied) The date of the Deed of Assignment is June 6. 1986. Even if We were to assume that payment by NPC for the amount of P410,580,000.00 had been made on said date. it is clear that more than two (2) years had already elapsed from said date. At the same time, We should note that there is no legal obstacle to the BIR granting, even without a suit by NPC, the tax credit or refund claimed by NPC, assuming that NPC's claim had been made seasonably, and assuming the amounts covered had actually been paid previously by the oil companies to the BIR. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the decision of this Court promulgated on May 31, 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur. Padilla and Quiason, JJ. took no part. G.R. No. L-31092 February 27, 1987 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. JOHN GOTAMCO & SONS, INC. and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.

YAP, J.: The question involved in this petition is whether respondent John Gotamco & Sons, Inc. should pay the 3% contractor's tax under Section 191 of the National Internal Revenue Code on the gross receipts it realized from the construction of the World Health Organization office building in Manila. The World Health Organization (WHO for short) is an international organization which has a regional office in Manila. As an international organization, it enjoys privileges and immunities which are defined more specifically in the Host Agreement entered into between the Republic of the Philippines and the said Organization on July 22, 1951. Section 11 of that Agreement provides, inter alia, that "the Organization, its assets, income and other properties shall be: (a) exempt from all direct and indirect taxes. It is understood, however, that the Organization will not claim exemption from taxes which are, in fact, no more than charges for public utility services; . . . When the WHO decided to construct a building to house its own offices, as well as the other United Nations offices stationed in Manila, it entered into a further agreement with the Govermment of the Republic of the Philippines on November 26, 1957. This agreement contained the following provision (Article III, paragraph 2):

42 The Organization may import into the country materials and fixtures required for the construction free from all duties and taxes and agrees not to utilize any portion of the international reserves of the Government. Article VIII of the above-mentioned agreement referred to the Host Agreement concluded on July 22, 1951 which granted the Organization exemption from all direct and indirect taxes. In inviting bids for the construction of the building, the WHO informed the bidders that the building to be constructed belonged to an international organization with diplomatic status and thus exempt from the payment of all fees, licenses, and taxes, and that therefore their bids "must take this into account and should not include items for such taxes, licenses and other payments to Government agencies." The construction contract was awarded to respondent John Gotamco & Sons, Inc. (Gotamco for short) on February 10, 1958 for the stipulated price of P370,000.00, but when the building was completed the price reached a total of P452,544.00. Sometime in May 1958, the WHO received an opinion from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue stating that "as the 3% contractor's tax is an indirect tax on the assets and income of the Organization, the gross receipts derived by contractors from their contracts with the WHO for the construction of its new building, are exempt from tax in accordance with . . . the Host Agreement." Subsequently, however, on June 3, 1958, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue reversed his opinion and stated that "as the 3% contractor's tax is not a direct nor an indirect tax on the WHO, but a tax that is primarily due from the contractor, the same is not covered by . . . the Host Agreement." On January 2, 1960, the WHO issued a certification state 91 inter alia,: When the request for bids for the construction of the World Health Organization office building was called for, contractors were informed that there would be no taxes or fees levied upon them for their work in connection with the construction of the building as this will be considered an indirect tax to the Organization caused by the increase of the contractor's bid in order to cover these taxes. This was upheld by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and it can be stated that the contractors submitted their bids in good faith with the exemption in mind. The undersigned, therefore, certifies that the bid of John Gotamco & Sons, made under the condition stated above, should be exempted from any taxes in connection with the construction of the World Health Organization office building. On January 17, 1961, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue sent a letter of demand to Gotamco demanding payment of P 16,970.40, representing the 3% contractor's tax plus surcharges on the gross receipts it received from the WHO in the construction of the latter's building. Respondent Gotamco appealed the Commissioner's decision to the Court of Tax Appeals, which after trial rendered a decision, in favor of Gotamco and reversed the Commissioner's decision. The Court of Tax Appeal's decision is now before us for review on certiorari. In his first assignment of error, petitioner questions the entitlement of the WHO to tax exemption, contending that the Host Agreement is null and void, not having been ratified by the Philippine Senate as required by the Constitution. We find no merit in this contention. While treaties are required to be ratified by the Senate under the Constitution, less formal types of international agreements may be entered into by the Chief Executive and become binding without the concurrence of the legislative body. 1 The Host Agreement comes within the latter category; it is a valid and binding international agreement even without the concurrence of the Philippine Senate. The privileges and immunities granted to the WHO under the Host Agreement have been recognized by this Court as legally binding on Philippine authorities. 2

43 Petitioner maintains that even assuming that the Host Agreement granting tax exemption to the WHO is valid and enforceable, the 3% contractor's tax assessed on Gotamco is not an "indirect tax" within its purview. Petitioner's position is that the contractor's tax "is in the nature of an excise tax which is a charge imposed upon the performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege or the engaging in an occupation. . . It is a tax due primarily and directly on the contractor, not on the owner of the building. Since this tax has no bearing upon the WHO, it cannot be deemed an indirect taxation upon it." We agree with the Court of Tax Appeals in rejecting this contention of the petitioner. Said the respondent court: In context, direct taxes are those that are demanded from the very person who, it is intended or desired, should pay them; while indirect taxes are those that are demanded in the first instance from one person in the expectation and intention that he can shift the burden to someone else. (Pollock vs. Farmers, L & T Co., 1957 US 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 Law. Ed. 759.) The contractor's tax is of course payable by the contractor but in the last analysis it is the owner of the building that shoulders the burden of the tax because the same is shifted by the contractor to the owner as a matter of self-preservation. Thus, it is an indirect tax. And it is an indirect tax on the WHO because, although it is payable by the petitioner, the latter can shift its burden on the WHO. In the last analysis it is the WHO that will pay the tax indirectly through the contractor and it certainly cannot be said that 'this tax has no bearing upon the World Health Organization. Petitioner claims that under the authority of the Philippine Acetylene Company versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al., 3 the 3% contractor's tax fans directly on Gotamco and cannot be shifted to the WHO. The Court of Tax Appeals, however, held that the said case is not controlling in this case, since the Host Agreement specifically exempts the WHO from "indirect taxes." We agree. The Philippine Acetylene case involved a tax on sales of goods which under the law had to be paid by the manufacturer or producer; the fact that the manufacturer or producer might have added the amount of the tax to the price of the goods did not make the sales tax "a tax on the purchaser." The Court held that the sales tax must be paid by the manufacturer or producer even if the sale is made to tax-exempt entities like the National Power Corporation, an agency of the Philippine Government, and to the Voice of America, an agency of the United States Government. The Host Agreement, in specifically exempting the WHO from "indirect taxes," contemplates taxes which, although not imposed upon or paid by the Organization directly, form part of the price paid or to be paid by it. This is made clear in Section 12 of the Host Agreement which provides: While the Organization will not, as a general rule, in the case of minor purchases, claim exemption from excise duties, and from taxes on the sale of movable and immovable property which form part of the price to be paid, nevertheless, when the Organization is making important purchases for official use of property on which such duties and taxes have been charged or are chargeable the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall make appropriate administrative arrangements for the remission or return of the amount of duty or tax. (Emphasis supplied). The above-quoted provision, although referring only to purchases made by the WHO, elucidates the clear intention of the Agreement to exempt the WHO from "indirect" taxation. The certification issued by the WHO, dated January 20, 1960, sought exemption of the contractor, Gotamco, from any taxes in connection with the construction of the WHO office building. The 3% contractor's tax would be within this category and should be viewed as a form of an "indirect tax" On the Organization, as the payment thereof or its inclusion in the bid price would have meant an increase in the construction cost of the building. Accordingly, finding no reversible error committed by the respondent Court of Tax Appeals, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

44